Size: 116x140 playable
Bases: 12 (10 regular, 2x 6 mineral, 1 rich gas)
Towers: 2
Start locations: 2
Nat-to-nat rush distance: 133
Nat Choke size: 3 rax + 1 supply depot
Main size: ~33 CCs
Tileset: Ulaan

Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +

Detail Images
+ Show Spoiler +

Bases:
+ Show Spoiler +

Center:
+ Show Spoiler +

Eye Candy:
+ Show Spoiler +

Published on EU as TPW Prophecy

ihasaKAROT

Netherlands4730 Posts

February 13 2012 13:07 GMT

The chokes to the natural and third seem a litttle too choked up, might wanna open them 1hex more

ps: can u make slightly less sick maps plz? you are taking the fun out of it

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

February 13 2012 13:21 GMT

I love how your can easily learn the layout from a glance, while it's complex enough to have a lot of strategical depth.
Excellent!

TibblesEvilCat

United Kingdom766 Posts

February 13 2012 13:41 GMT

the 1/2 bases i feel with seige tank and PF might control too much space effectivley

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

February 13 2012 15:19 GMT

On February 13 2012 22:07 ihasaKAROT wrote:
The chokes to the natural and third seem a litttle too choked up, might wanna open them 1hex more

ps: can u make slightly less sick maps plz? you are taking the fun out of it

Standard Wallin width.

On February 13 2012 22:41 TibblesEvilCat wrote:
the 1/2 bases i feel with seige tank and PF might control too much space effectivley

That's why they're only half bases - trade gas and minerals vs map control.

S1eth

Austria221 Posts

February 13 2012 15:51 GMT

The high ground protruding into your territory feels pretty intimidating. Players would feel so much saver if the whole thing were flipped horizontally.
If you opponent (terran, because siege tanks) controls your 1/2 base, he has full control over any ground path to your 3 bases and prevent your from either taking or reinforcing other bases.

Could you remove the pillars in the middle? The map is already choked enough and I think at least the middle should allow zerg to be able to win an engagement.
It that TPW written with cliffs on the map borders?

Warning: This is exaggerated:
+ Show Spoiler +

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 13 2012 16:35 GMT

Fill in the holes below the cliff of the center base. The way things are going for zerg these days, and on this map where the center paths are all limited width, I think the least you could do is give them a nice open field between nat and 3rd and below their forward base, which they'll have to take eventually.

Stips

Germany57 Posts

February 13 2012 18:50 GMT

I don't get why the exe in the middle has only 6/1... Imo it schould be 8/2 or even a gold exspansion, cause it's harder to hold? Or even delete it? 6/1 make no sense to me?

lefix

Germany1082 Posts

February 13 2012 19:30 GMT

Nah, that is maybe blizzards logic, but it makes alot more sense when an expansion with such high positional value should has less resources in return.
it's like dezi said, by taking that base you give up a few extra minerals and gas in order to gain mapcontrol.

Praetorial

United States4241 Posts

February 13 2012 19:45 GMT

#10

Gigantic potential for split map back and forth?

CaptainCrush

United States785 Posts

February 13 2012 20:05 GMT

#11

Looks great aesthetically, but its almost too macro friendly. You can take 3 bases pretty quick and only have to defend two choke points.

InsidiA

Canada1169 Posts

February 13 2012 20:06 GMT

#12

On February 14 2012 00:51 S1eth wrote:
The high ground protruding into your territory feels pretty intimidating. Players would feel so much saver if the whole thing were flipped horizontally.
If you opponent (terran, because siege tanks) controls your 1/2 base, he has full control over any ground path to your 3 bases and prevent your from either taking or reinforcing other bases.

Could you remove the pillars in the middle? The map is already choked enough and I think at least the middle should allow zerg to be able to win an engagement.
It that TPW written with cliffs on the map borders?

Warning: This is exaggerated:
+ Show Spoiler +

Wondering that i see a T, P and a W

Stips

Germany57 Posts

February 13 2012 20:07 GMT

#13

@lefix: y, I read his post, but can you explain, why this position has a "high positional value"?

I mean, if this exe here has a high positional value, than imo Metalopolis' gold expansion would have as well (in the middle of the map, high ground, no other way to enemy base). And there I rarely see any pro taking the gold as a third in order to gain positional advantage AND more mins.

Sorry for my stupid question (and perhaps I got sth wrong), but I want to learn

[And why does the XWT not reveal the shortest path as shwon in the Analyzer pic?]

Meltage

Germany613 Posts

February 13 2012 21:33 GMT

#14

On February 14 2012 05:07 Stips wrote:
@lefix: y, I read his post, but can you explain, why this position has a "high positional value"?

I mean, if this exe here has a high positional value, than imo Metalopolis' gold expansion would have as well (in the middle of the map, high ground, no other way to enemy base). And there I rarely see any pro taking the gold as a third in order to gain positional advantage AND more mins.

Sorry for my stupid question (and perhaps I got sth wrong), but I want to learn

[And why does the XWT not reveal the shortest path as shwon in the Analyzer pic?]

Well on Meta you dont have to go through the high ground gold base. I'd like to stress there are paths around this middle too, that come in handy once you get past 2-3 bases.
I think its good to have XWT pay a role later in the game, and look for flankings early game + forcing the player to scout the shortest path.

More openess outside nat makes sense. Although I think maps look less open from an overview compared to ingame. The "corridors" on this map is quite wide, I think. I put the walls+gap between the middle bases, and the unpathable high grounds to the sides, choking it just a bit, to decrease the flow between the forward bases, and to make them safe, actually. You dont want them to be like winners golds, just late game / terran bases.