• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:57
CEST 18:57
KST 01:57
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition32
StarCraft 2
General
Revisiting the game after10 years and wow it's bad The New Patch Killed Mech! TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada herO Talks: Poor Performance at EWC and more...
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st) WardiTV Mondays RSL Offline Finals Dates + Ticket Sales!
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers Mutation # 492 Get Out More
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW caster Sayle BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET BW General Discussion Question regarding recent ASL Bisu vs Larva game
Tourneys
[ASL20] Semifinal B [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN [ASL20] Semifinal A
Strategy
Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies Siegecraft - a new perspective
Other Games
General Games
Dawn of War IV Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1593 users

Work In Progress Melee Maps - Page 195

Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games
Post a Reply
Prev 1 193 194 195 196 197 217 Next
Keep our forum clean! PLEASE post your WIP melee maps in this thread for initial feedback. -Barrin
Syphon8
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada298 Posts
July 10 2016 17:56 GMT
#3881
On July 11 2016 02:53 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2016 02:47 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 11 2016 02:42 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On July 11 2016 02:37 Syphon8 wrote:
Really? I see the top being used far more often than the bottom.

The thirds are the bases at 3 and 9, not the bottom...


How far away are the 3 or 9 bases from the natural town hall? Seems like it would take forever to get between them making them completely undefendable too.


~45 tiles.

It's only about 8 tiles longer than to the close base. The architecture makes it look longer than it is.


Is that the path distance by ground? If nat-ramp to nat-ramp is 60, nat-townhall to third-townhall looks to be about 80... Either way when travelling towards that third, your army would come pretty close to the path between the other player's natural and third.


60 is the lowground path, and yes that's the ground distance.
',:/
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-07-10 21:59:14
July 10 2016 21:59 GMT
#3882
On July 10 2016 16:49 Syphon8 wrote:
Fatam got me thinkin' 'bout mirror maps.

[image loading]

Think I need to expand the mains a bit, and delete those rocks.

4 easy to defense bases, nat ramp2ramp is about 60, 2 harder bases, and 3 golds for zest.

I don't see the point, frankly. The rush distance is so short that every game will end up being settled before 3 bases. The top of the map is so far removed from the bottom that nothing there will ever see play. It's so inconvenient even trying to move to the top half, compared to how easy it is to just attack. If any game on this map ever involves the top half, it'll be because the two players agreed to do it beforehand.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
Syphon8
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada298 Posts
July 11 2016 05:09 GMT
#3883
[image loading]

Tried to address the concerns. Make it more pointed. Lots of changes to the bottom half...

Mains a bit bigger, close third is much closer, far third is also quite a bit closer, the narrow channel on the lowground can be blocked at the close third with a single 2x2 building, as can the small cardinal ramp.

I also pulled the left and right edges out to give a bit of air room, and pull the mains further apart.
',:/
The_Templar
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
your Country52797 Posts
July 11 2016 14:46 GMT
#3884
Isn't the map zerg hell? Also, there is a base missing in the bottom right third location.
Moderatorshe/her
TL+ Member
ZigguratOfUr
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Iraq16955 Posts
July 11 2016 18:23 GMT
#3885
On July 11 2016 14:09 Syphon8 wrote:
[image loading]

Tried to address the concerns. Make it more pointed. Lots of changes to the bottom half...

Mains a bit bigger, close third is much closer, far third is also quite a bit closer, the narrow channel on the lowground can be blocked at the close third with a single 2x2 building, as can the small cardinal ramp.

I also pulled the left and right edges out to give a bit of air room, and pull the mains further apart.


Not a fan of this iteration of the map at all. At least in the previous version you could do a normal two-base all-in every game. The middle is now way too choky, which makes it pretty imbalanced, and the fix to make the thirds easier to take is a band-aid fix that doesn't address the fundamental problems with the location of the expansions.
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
July 12 2016 00:07 GMT
#3886
^ Agree with above, fixes some problems but is not very attractive.

I think you could just change the shapes of the routes and adjust the width while keeping the original shape. The concept is super cool, I love the lowground hallways, it just needs to give players more realistic prospects to go north.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
SwedenTheKid
Profile Joined July 2014
567 Posts
July 13 2016 17:20 GMT
#3887
[image loading]

136x192
Mains are farthest bottom bases.
Thoughts?
Casual Mapmaker
ZigguratOfUr
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Iraq16955 Posts
July 14 2016 04:31 GMT
#3888
On July 14 2016 02:20 SwedenTheKid wrote:
[image loading]

136x192
Mains are farthest bottom bases.
Thoughts?


The main-nat-third setup is interesting; it reminds me of Andromeda. There are multiple openings to the main, but they look manageable (though I'm not sure why you feel the need to include multiple openings to the main in almost all your maps). The bases towards the top of the map are a bit too coupled--taking the fourth requires securing the fifth. The biggest problem with the map imo is that it is too big. 136x192 is too much for a 2-player map. Maybe reduce the size of the centre. I don't see the centre two bases both top or bottom ever being taken except by someone very far ahead. Also the mixed gold and blue mineral lines are an unnecessary flourish. Non-standard mineral lines should only be used when they serve a purpose, and they don't seem to do much here.
Syphon8
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada298 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-07-15 18:52:22
July 15 2016 18:52 GMT
#3889
I think the really convex nature of the mains and the long rush distance would probably make proxies too strong.Is that hallway in the main 3 tiles wide at its shortest? o.0 That is a pretty narrow choke for a main base.

Threw this together last night... Inspired by like, sniper ridge, but obviously not a direct translation.

[image loading]

It's about 152x152, 21 bases (dealwithit.png). Mains at 1, 4, 7, and 10. Close third blocked by rocks, far thirds less open.

The cardinal ridges in the center are two tiers high, and you can't walk from them onto the thirds. (They do connect with the middle-gold). The chokes going into the far thirds are four tiles wide. The choke between them is 3 at its narrowest, mostly 4.
',:/
ZigguratOfUr
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Iraq16955 Posts
July 15 2016 19:31 GMT
#3890
On July 16 2016 03:52 Syphon8 wrote:
I think the really convex nature of the mains and the long rush distance would probably make proxies too strong.Is that hallway in the main 3 tiles wide at its shortest? o.0 That is a pretty narrow choke for a main base.

Threw this together last night... Inspired by like, sniper ridge, but obviously not a direct translation.

[image loading]

It's about 152x152, 21 bases (dealwithit.png). Mains at 1, 4, 7, and 10. Close third blocked by rocks, far thirds less open.

The cardinal ridges in the center are two tiers high, and you can't walk from them onto the thirds. (They do connect with the middle-gold). The chokes going into the far thirds are four tiles wide. The choke between them is 3 at its narrowest, mostly 4.


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-07-15 21:48:15
July 15 2016 21:44 GMT
#3891
@Syphon: Super cool design. Has issues but I'd love to see it polished up. Slightly more space for min lines and a little larger maybe.

@Sweden: I agree with zig that it's too long; you could easily make 12oclock into one gold base or something, and the two 6oclock bases don't need to be connected or have rocks, they'd be the closest 4th base option but much dicier than the edge highground 4th. It'd be nice if the top corner 5th bases weren't so boring, but at that point the game is more about macro positioning anyway so it's fine. I think I'd push the edge 4th bases a bit closer to the outer ramp with rocks, to incentivize players to break those rocks for defensive movement.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
IIEclipseII
Profile Joined February 2016
Germany157 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-07-15 22:42:56
July 15 2016 22:41 GMT
#3892
Vis A Vis
most updated version published on eu.
[image loading]
[image loading]
Syphon8
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada298 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-07-16 00:45:20
July 16 2016 00:44 GMT
#3893
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.


How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.

The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.

I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.

Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.
',:/
ZigguratOfUr
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Iraq16955 Posts
July 16 2016 01:21 GMT
#3894
On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.


How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.

The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.

I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.

Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.


The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.
Syphon8
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada298 Posts
July 16 2016 01:44 GMT
#3895
On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.


How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.

The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.

I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.

Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.


The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.


1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer?

2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base.

Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different.
',:/
ZigguratOfUr
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Iraq16955 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-07-16 02:05:53
July 16 2016 02:05 GMT
#3896
On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.


How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.

The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.

I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.

Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.


The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.


1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer?

2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base.

Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different.


The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken.

As for drop defence, if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans.
Syphon8
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada298 Posts
July 16 2016 02:23 GMT
#3897
On July 16 2016 11:05 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.


How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.

The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.

I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.

Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.


The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.


1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer?

2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base.

Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different.


The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken.


That pretty much lines up with what I said, that it's only a third if you take it late.

It's cliffable in either position though, making it harder to hold.

if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans.


Everything you just said applies to the natural third on its side, except for 'exploiting the high ground'--which makes no sense, because why would a player not have vision of their own main?
',:/
ZigguratOfUr
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Iraq16955 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-07-16 02:35:22
July 16 2016 02:31 GMT
#3898
On July 16 2016 11:23 Syphon8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 16 2016 11:05 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.


How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.

The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.

I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.

Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.


The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.


1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer?

2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base.

Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different.


The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken.


That pretty much lines up with what I said, that it's only a third if you take it late.

It's cliffable in either position though, making it harder to hold.

Show nested quote +
if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans.


Everything you just said applies to the natural third on its side, except for 'exploiting the high ground'--which makes no sense, because why would a player not have vision of their own main?


"Late". Taking it before the 5 min mark is perfectly manageable, and I'd consider that a significant spawn imbalance (not map-breaking necessarily, but certainly to take note of). And you can't bounce between the main and third easily on the other side.
Syphon8
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada298 Posts
July 16 2016 05:08 GMT
#3899
On July 16 2016 11:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 16 2016 11:23 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 11:05 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On July 16 2016 10:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 10:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On July 16 2016 09:44 Syphon8 wrote:
On July 16 2016 04:31 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


I really like the sniper ridge-style bases. The biggest problems with the map all have to do with rotational symmetry. Taking a third and fourth is so much easier for the clockwise player. Also double ramps look really awful in game, with the terrain looking rippled and stuff.


How's that? The forward thirds on each side are the same distance from the natural and are constructed exactly the same way. For all intents and purposes, only the main and nat areas are rotational symmetric and the rest is double mirrored.

The rock-blocked close thirds, I don't think, would really be taken before a fifth base unless for a very niche circumstance.

I put them there specifically so aggressive players would have that fallback spot if the defender manages to hold without taking much damage.

Also, double ramps only look weird when they're diagonal. Cardinal ones stack perfectly.


The rock-blocked bases are obvious thirds or fourths (depending on the race and match-up) if you're the clockwise player. I'm not sure why you think they're fifths. And the forward thirds might be symmetrical in positions, but one being backed-up against the main and the other against the rock-blocked third make defending against drops completely different depending on which one is taken.


1) The forward thirds are defensible far before you have the army size necessary to take the rocks down while maintaining aggression, much smaller chokes and they aren't on the main attack lane. I'm not sure why you think the close thirds are the obvious ones--just because they're closer?

2) The forward fourth is very close to the forward third, and you don't need to really defend much more space to take it, allowing you to focus on aggression and forward map control. Two easy to control bases is more attractive than one hard to control base.

Explain more what you think about the differences in drops, I'm not really sure why you think defending on each side would be drastically different.


The rocked-off third is very easy to defend if you're in a spawn away from the opponent. Taking down the rocks is barely any impediment when you're talking about a fourth or a later third. The forward fourth is vulnerable to pushes using the high ground, it's not automatically taken after the forward third is taken.


That pretty much lines up with what I said, that it's only a third if you take it late.

It's cliffable in either position though, making it harder to hold.

if the base taken is close to the main, the dropping player can easily bounce back and forth between the main and third, especially exploiting the high ground in the main to pressure the third's mineral line, while the other third isn't vulnerable to the same shenanigans.


Everything you just said applies to the natural third on its side, except for 'exploiting the high ground'--which makes no sense, because why would a player not have vision of their own main?


"Late". Taking it before the 5 min mark is perfectly manageable, and I'd consider that a significant spawn imbalance (not map-breaking necessarily, but certainly to take note of). And you can't bounce between the main and third easily on the other side.


You can bounce between the nat and third though, which isn't as different as you're making it sound.
',:/
Fatam
Profile Joined June 2012
1986 Posts
July 16 2016 07:06 GMT
#3900
@ the sniper ridge map, I think the CCW player has the advantage in most cases. Although it's not the most massive rotational imbalance I've ever seen. I think zerg doesn't like either third option, and maybe that is the biggest issue.
Search "FTM" in SC2 | Latest Maps: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/528528-2-ftm-siegfried-station http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/525489-2-ftm-crimson-aftermath http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/524737-2-ftm-grime
Prev 1 193 194 195 196 197 217 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
LamboSC2 495
Clem_sc2 390
ProTech80
BRAT_OK 51
MindelVK 22
TKL 15
JuggernautJason11
trigger 11
DenverSC2 5
ZombieGrub1
StarCraft: Brood War
Soma 967
Larva 876
Light 858
ZerO 704
Mini 550
Barracks 547
actioN 434
Stork 407
hero 319
firebathero 294
[ Show more ]
Hyun 214
JulyZerg 137
Rush 136
PianO 130
ggaemo 103
Dewaltoss 102
Sharp 78
sorry 73
Mong 57
Pusan 53
zelot 42
Sacsri 24
ToSsGirL 23
Terrorterran 18
NaDa 15
scan(afreeca) 15
Dota 2
Gorgc8165
qojqva2748
Fuzer 328
Counter-Strike
fl0m2033
olofmeister1771
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor598
Liquid`Hasu415
Other Games
singsing2060
B2W.Neo1036
Skadoodle276
ArmadaUGS187
Hui .165
KnowMe157
Trikslyr30
ZerO(Twitch)24
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV60
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
Other Games
gamesdonequick0
StarCraft: Brood War
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 21
• Adnapsc2 18
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 16
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 3844
• lizZardDota246
League of Legends
• Jankos3714
Upcoming Events
Safe House 2
3m
TKL 15
ZombieGrub1
3DClanTV 0
IPSL
2h 3m
Sziky vs Havi
Artosis vs Klauso
Monday Night Weeklies
23h 3m
WardiTV Invitational
1d 18h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 21h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Online Event
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.