EPT[M] (2) ESV Ravage by IronManSC - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
sCnDiamond
Germany340 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I think the rock towers are a weird addition though, as they aren't terribly significant in their current form. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On June 12 2013 10:48 Fatam wrote: I'm 50/50. I think some of the changes are better, others not so sure. Certainly the first version had a third that was just too open (imo) and made the map favor zerg. So changing the third was good. I think the rock towers are a weird addition though, as they aren't terribly significant in their current form. It is very significant, because when they are down the third has 2 disparate paths, making attacks much harder without changing the openness. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
For example, I like the new rock tower area in theory, but I don't think it really jives with the rest of the map or the lategame flow. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On June 12 2013 14:25 NewSunshine wrote: I'm really digging the way the map looks now. The normal 4th base has been differentiated from the base near the main, distinguishing each part of the map to itself, where before they were very similar in structure. The 3rd base is easier to defend, and also features more interesting terrain in general. I also love the implementation of the rock tower, because although at first glance it doesn't do much, it's actually got a huge impact. With the rocks down, if I want to attack the third from the outside I have to take a much longer path, or spend time destroying the rocks, and if I want to move between your 3rd and 4th bases, the same thing happens. BUT, if I then take the center expansion, I'm gonna want those rocks gone asap, to help my ground units get where they need to go. It's a slick feature that makes me like this map so much more. This. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On June 12 2013 14:25 NewSunshine wrote: I also love the implementation of the rock tower, because although at first glance it doesn't do much, it's actually got a huge impact. With the rocks down, if I want to attack the third from the outside I have to take a much longer path, or spend time destroying the rocks, and if I want to move between your 3rd and 4th bases, the same thing happens. BUT, if I then take the center expansion, I'm gonna want those rocks gone asap, to help my ground units get where they need to go. It's a slick feature that makes me like this map so much more. The collapsable rocks may look awkwardly placed and don't appear to have much significance at first sight, but my intentions (as you mentioned) were to give it a "make it or break it" stance on the 3rds, and later on a path in the late-game. With the center rocks, players are forced to go around the side paths for a long while, which makes the collapsable rocks used more depending on the type of attack and if your opponent has a 3rd. For the defender, this means making a choice... "do I want one entrance into my 3rd, or two?" For example, the illustration below could show a potential ZvT or ZvP situation if the rocks are not blocking the entire ramp: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZHJckka.jpg?1) The Zerg player can rally at the red dot, and if the rocks remain untouched (not blocking the path), he is able to do a 2-way attack on the terran or protoss 3rd. Now if the rocks ARE blocking the ramp, and unless Zerg breaks them, these are the two paths that Zerg would use: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TSLip5R.jpg?1) In this scenario, a 2-way attack on the Terran or Protoss 3rd would require splitting up the zerg army massively for an extensive amount of time, OR they can rally at the red dot (in previous picture), and spend time destroying the rocks again to make it easier. This all depends on the circumstance of the players. But those rocks, whether used or untouched, can be a win or lose situation. | ||
| ||
