Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 114

Even though the m2m distance is tiny, each player has an "inbase" mineral wall base with 8m1g.

Completely unplayable?

On May 15 2014 03:19 EatThePath wrote:
@skd: Okay my feedback is only intended to be constructive -- I am pretty underwhelmed. The 4 large bridges really amount to several small holes in a wide open field that defines access to the nat and 3rd. Granted it provides some chokepoint definition at the 3rd and some forcefield engagement locations, but I think the concept would be much stronger if the bridges were narrower or separated more, creating a clear double-bridge towards center and a double-bridge to/from the 3rd. Not only would this make that area more interesting and positionally strategic, but I think it would help improve the significance of the center design. Right now it doesn't really matter which route you take because they all end up at the same place -- outside the nat/3rd. Generally no one will be defending that area, they'll just be defending either of those base locations or camping equidistant / safe stance at a "chokepoint". Apart from parade push back and forth rally type situations (primarily zvt), there won't be much interaction in the center until the late late game when the lowground bases are taken, and then the action will simply be at those bases. I think the intention though is to provide wide flanking options or unscouted surprise army movements, requiring vigilance and map presence and therefore creating action. So if the "destination" terrain of access points to nat and 3rd is more defined, I think it will also promote the center function.

In the late late game I think the army movement will be pretty interesting, so I would recommend making the map tilt toward 4+ base games. (Not too heavy handed, it's almost in the right spot imo.)