Liquid`

EST 16:42
CET 22:42
KST 06:42

Forum Sidebar

Events/Features

Klaucher discontinued / in-game color settings Anyone remember me from 2000s Bnet EAST server? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ How Rain Became ProGamer in Just 3 Months FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle

Tourneys

[BSL21] LB QuarterFinals - Sunday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] WB SEMIFINALS - Saturday 21:00 CET

Strategy

Simple Questions, Simple Answers Game Theory for Starcraft Current Meta Fighting Spirit mining rates

Blogs

The (Hidden) Drug Problem in…

TrAiDoS

I decided to write a webnov…

DjKniteX

James Bond movies ranking - pa…

Topin

Thanks for the RSL

Hildegard

[M] (2) Korhal Nightmare

Post a Reply

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

July 19 2013 14:51 GMT

Korhal Nightmare

+ Show Spoiler +

Fog doesn't show up on overview. ;;;;

Uploaded On: [EU] [NA] [SEA] [KR] [CH]

Images:
+ Show Spoiler +

Statistics:
+ Show Spoiler +

Absolute Bounds: 152x152
Playable Bounds: 136x136

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

July 19 2013 21:40 GMT

The third looks like it would be very vulnerable to attacks from the base directly above it. Perhaps too much so. Otherwise, I like it.

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

July 19 2013 22:15 GMT

On July 20 2013 06:40 Coppermantis wrote:
The third looks like it would be very vulnerable to attacks from the base directly above it. Perhaps too much so. Otherwise, I like it.

That's the trade-off between that and the other third. If you take the other one it's easier to defend but further away. The forward one is (a) closer so better for strategies like mech which are slow and immobile and (b) more open and better for zerg players, but it comes with the cost of having to defend the cliff above it. Although, given that the entrance to the above cliff is very tight, you can defend it with a relatively small number of units.

Existor

Russian Federation4295 Posts

July 19 2013 23:06 GMT

We need more psychodelic maps

MrSunny

Australia73 Posts

July 20 2013 00:30 GMT

I love the aesthetics, original and really well done, but the layout seems like it was really unplanned.

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

July 20 2013 13:09 GMT

On July 20 2013 09:30 MrSunny wrote:
I love the aesthetics, original and really well done, but the layout seems like it was really unplanned.

In what way?

MrSunny

Australia73 Posts

July 20 2013 14:48 GMT

Well, to me it looks like you made the 3 high ground bases first, and than sort of just free styled the map from that point on-wards, which isn't really a bad thing, just in this case i feel it didn't work out very well. None of the bases really seem to be in well thought-out positions.

In terms of game play, i feel that the watch tower high grounds are really strange. If an aggressor was to capture this position on the oppositions side, he becomes in control of practically the entire map. Perhaps this was a feature you were going for, and maybe you might say that the player just need to have army control over his respective tower, but if that is the case why even have the passage between the main cliff and the watchtower.

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

July 21 2013 22:40 GMT

On July 20 2013 23:48 MrSunny wrote:
In terms of game play, i feel that the watch tower high grounds are really strange. If an aggressor was to capture this position on the oppositions side, he becomes in control of practically the entire map. Perhaps this was a feature you were going for, and maybe you might say that the player just need to have army control over his respective tower, but if that is the case why even have the passage between the main cliff and the watchtower.

Umm, no the towers don't give you control of the entire map. They cut off the path to the close-by-air third but they don't even cut in to the path to the other third at all. They're easy to walk around and if your opponent puts their entire army there then they are massively vulnerable to counterattacks.

And if you don't like the layout that's fine, but please give more comments than "you didn't think about the layout" because I assure you I did.

MrSunny

Australia73 Posts

July 22 2013 02:07 GMT

Control the watchtower and control the map. Watch tower and high ground advantage right on your opponents door step is too much. The defending player has no chance at defending the high ground third, and the low ground third is too open, and too close to the watchtower ramp. Counter attacks are unlikely, because the defending players army is easily flanked on their way to the opponents base.

Qwyn

United States2779 Posts

July 22 2013 04:16 GMT

#10

This texture set is so trippy, rofl. I like the custom word decals!

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

July 22 2013 10:35 GMT

#11

On July 22 2013 11:07 MrSunny wrote:
Control the watchtower and control the map. Watch tower and high ground advantage right on your opponents door step is too much. The defending player has no chance at defending the high ground third, and the low ground third is too open, and too close to the watchtower ramp. Counter attacks are unlikely, because the defending players army is easily flanked on their way to the opponents base.

So you're talking about PvT? lolwhat? If a protoss sits their army on that tower then their bases get dropped until either they die or they go home. Protoss can't sit on that tower in PvT for more than a couple of minutes, and if they do then they don't have enough army to roflstomp the terran, especially since they can be flanked on 3 sides up there.

Further, any army up there, regardless of race, can't attack down the ramp in to the concave at the low ground third without the defender having a massive advantage. Given you can't even see very far down the ramp with the tower, it's just the same as attacking in to any other position on any other map. With good preparation, the defender has a massive advantage.