[M] (2) Critical Core

On June 30 2012 10:26 moskonia wrote:
Overall the map seem cool, I don't really like the watch towers covering every path to your base, but that is your choice.

On June 30 2012 10:26 moskonia wrote:
Can you give teh analyzer for rush distance? would be more useful then only having the openness.

On June 30 2012 10:33 PandaZerg wrote:
why so many rocks?

On June 30 2012 12:44 NewSunshine wrote:
I'd drop the ones blocking the expansion. Keep it up though!

On June 30 2012 13:19 FlaShFTW wrote:
take out one set of rocks at the middle base because terran lift can be a bit powerful.

On June 30 2012 13:20 MarcusRife wrote:


We don't need to get into that discussion again. You and I know where we stand on this issue from my other thread.

On June 30 2012 14:54 Guardian85 wrote:
If it releases in EU, i might test it.

On June 30 2012 14:54 Guardian85 wrote:
Your middle is clean, simple but very inviting.. though i dont think 4 XNT, will be the best choice.

On June 30 2012 10:26 moskonia wrote:
Ohana? I think it more like a mix of Antiga and Condemned ridge

On July 01 2012 04:47 MarcusRife wrote:


Anybody want to host it on EU so the EU buddies can test it?



Do you suggest having no towers?

On July 01 2012 01:53 monitor wrote:
No, don't take out those rocks, otherwise the middle expos suck. The semi-islands are frickin awesome and they have to be this way for the position balance to work- if you removed any set of rocks, the expansions would become very vulnerable and hard to defend. The thing that makes them viable is that you can break 1 set of rocks or none and have it be very safe for you to hold, regardless of the position. If anything, the solution would be to remove the ramp that the diagonal rocks are on so that it's even less vulnerable.

On July 02 2012 06:29 MarcusRife wrote:


I liked monitor's suggestion so I went ahead and took out the large ramps in the middle. Also made some aesthetic updates.

On November 02 2012 06:22 EatThePath wrote:
Now terran can PF the 4th towards a ccw zerg spawn, and without the wide middle-facing ramp, zerg can't hardly do anything about it. Then it's literally one siege tank radius to the zerg's 3rd.

On November 02 2012 06:40 MarcusRife wrote:


The intention was that when Zerg spawns ccw they don't take the cw base as their third. They take the ccw third.

On November 02 2012 08:03 Gfire wrote:
I think it'll be way to hard to see stuff in those little corridors behind the double-high cliffs of the mains in some positions. I do like them, though. I wonder if you could get away with pushing the minerals on the high ground middle bases back against the edge some. Or rather, cut away some of the terrain behind them and then get rid of some of the terrain on the far side of the little path so it remains the same size, but a bit away from the main so you don't have vision issues either. That would improve this map for me.

On November 02 2012 08:03 Gfire wrote:
I think the close thirds are a bit too close, though, and open. Seems like you'll just easily secure it if you have a big enough army, and never secure it with a smaller army. Seems like that makes the skill required to take a third very simple, only about army size, not much positioning or other things.

I do really like the addition of those paths though.

On November 02 2012 08:03 Gfire wrote:
I think the close thirds are a bit too close, though, and open. Seems like you'll just easily secure it if you have a big enough army, and never secure it with a smaller army. Seems like that makes the skill required to take a third very simple, only about army size, not much positioning or other things.

On November 04 2012 04:39 MarcusRife wrote:


I thought about this some more and decided to move the third around a little and I created a area in the natural that helps you control the third area with siege tanks or collosi or whatever else.