[M] (2) AEM Sol Dios

On May 16 2014 15:06 opisska wrote:
I don't think that the collabsible rock on the island will ever come to play. It's a nice touch, but probably completely useless. Nobody is going to drop there or waste time on mutas/banshees for that. Actually, for island expansions, if you can that the other player is aiming for them, it is better to let them start and then lose money on cancelling/losing buildings with the same army.

On May 16 2014 20:06 Yonnua wrote:


The value of the collapsible tower is that to safely take the island, you need to destroy the tower AND the rocks before you take it, because if you riskily take it otherwise, you run the risk of the other player destroying it and dealing enormous damage to your base instantly.

On May 29 2014 07:04 Samro225am wrote:
the map has lots of style and a nicestraight forward layout. yet i am not sure, if it is not a tad bit too straight forward.

one point that was not discussed so far is that there are mainly three lanes that cut the map in section and that connect the two sides. along these paths the bases are lined up. only two of these three lanes connect at one single point near the XWT. i find it really interesting, yet problematic. it is in or out, do or die. there is no flanking or multi pronged attacks except by air and super strange "positioning" or rather timing when to move into the choke. while the visuals are nice and clean, that layout might be too simplified or restricted. I am really afraid it narrows down the spectrum of play styles too much.

edit: maybe a diagram could help me to understand what kind of positioning you had in mind? e.g. when on four or five bases?

On May 29 2014 16:11 iamcaustic wrote:

I heavily disagree with the assessments made here. What I particularly love about this map is how its design forces better planning and positioning to successfully perform flanks and multi-pronged attacks. It's a concept that used to matter in StarCraft, but got lost along the way due to more open map designs that reactively allow anyone to spread out their army or retreat in a different direction, making the game more about who has more money than who uses their units better.

Some of my fondest memories of SC2 come from 2011. I specifically remember my Shattered Temple TvP mid game revolved around baiting my opponent with only half my army so the second half could cut off his escape path back to his base. Protoss would be caught performing a last stand on the watch tower with their 2 colossus timing (popular at the time) completely surrounded. Instantly won many games like that.

When you look at the map designs of the current ladder pool, the only two maps where real flanking tactics can even be performed (Habitation Station and Merry-Go-Round) happen to be my favourite maps. Sol Dios isn't about brainless macro like Frost or Alterzim Stronghold, and in my opinion makes it a far superior StarCraft map.

On May 29 2014 16:39 Samro225am wrote:


When there is not one crossing of any path on one side of the map (NW) and only one connection between the other two paths (SE) in the middle of the map movement is just too restricted.

For an actual flank you need to go at least half way across the map? No way you get behind your opponent's back like what you describe.

I think uvantak talks about the same design issue when he says that the gold is one way and winner wins more and that additional paths would help indeed.

Maybe you want to draw that diagram for me. PvZ 4 against 5bases scenario? Or even less bases really.

Don't get me wrong I totally see what many people like in the map design yet I wanted to ask if anyone else fears movement is too restricted by that 3 lane design.

On May 29 2014 21:37 Samro225am wrote:
all things you praise are possible on most good maps. for example in this MotM these things all are totally possible. it is not something that makes this map stand out.

actually i think this map does not do what you try to make us believe. only your last two images define a situation i can imagine in sc2. as much as i would love to see these split army scenarios happen, they are very unrealistic here and in the way described in the diagrams.

1. just do me a favor and add the path that the flanking army needs to take before they could engage (that is why only the two last images are valid imho) - the distances are huge where your split up forces cannot be spotted or would be destroyed before they do anything!

2. your flanks always come from the high round, too. while you might have other means to see from low ground in these mid game scenarios - and hg does not mean so much anyway - i have to note that all your flanks come from lg.

3. too much death-balling in this game and your flanks would be too damn risky to set up and tricky to execute without getting spotted far too early. scouting as you pointed out to me earlier.

i do not want to take anything away from this nice small map, it is just not that outstanding and i have to say i do not follow your argumentation at all. try to paint these diagrams on the other motm finalists. i am really interested in these

On May 30 2014 08:36 iamcaustic wrote:

1. Seriously, why are you having such a difficult time understanding those diagrams, especially with the accompanying paragraphs? "Sick Baits" refers to the portion of the army that backs up and entices the opponent's army to move forward (which is indicated by the red arrow). For the first one, you'd be retreating into your nat while the opponent's army moves toward it. The flank options are where the second and/or third portions of your army are; all you need to do is attack-move to engage.

2. So? In those situations, you also have a squad already on the high ground as well, baiting the opponent's army into a disadvantageous position. Is there some particular concern here you're wanting to address?

3. Risky how? You mean if you mess up badly and engage with only half your army? That's not flanking, that's playing bad. Executing a flank is not tricky at all. 1a-2a-3a.

I really don't understand how you cannot follow what I'm saying, but I can immediately tell you're not a Terran player because of it. Low-level Protoss and Zergs tend to be more comfortable keeping their army in a single ball. These diagrams aren't necessary for people who know how to control their armies and force favourable engagements; if I get the urge to write a tutorial about basic flanking and army engagements in SC2, I'll consider doing more. I will say, however, that Silt and Coriolis are not very good for these kind of flanking tactics. Samsara is okay-ish. Sol Dios and Nimbus are best for it.

I'll let you contemplate why that is. If you need help figuring it out, feel free to PM me about it. No need to derail the map thread with a more abstract discussion about army movement and positioning.

all things you praise are possible on most good maps. for example in this MotM these things all are totally possible. it is not something that makes this map stand out.