[M] (2) Veritas et Fortitudo

On October 01 2014 09:01 Superbanana wrote:
Siege tank behind your natural/third/fourth on the high ground? Or anything there O_O

On October 01 2014 06:26 hvylobster wrote:
The Xel'Naga tower placement decision is key; if their vision extends to the geyser on the middle High Yield expansions, then you only need a flash of watchtower control to know if your opponent took a fast Mid-Base on you. I feel that a better design would ensure that you need to actively scout mid or risk facing overwhelming forces.

Final note: so this is Reverse Steppes of War, where taking bases is easy and pushing suddenly feels like a coinflip.

On October 01 2014 22:25 SatedSC2 wrote:
How big are the chokes on either side of the natural..?

It looks like they can be walled with a Pylon and a Gateway (or a Supply Depot and a Barracks) but I can't tell from the overview.

On October 02 2014 01:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Wouldn't the cliffs near the 3rd-nat-4th, which don't seem to be accessible by ground, make drops a bit too powerful ?

On October 02 2014 05:15 hvylobster wrote:

Eventually, the area will be filled with doodads and unpathable by ground; maybe the map maker should have filled the area with neutral add-ons and command centers as placeholders for when he eventually adds doodads there to stop flyby posters who look at the map, see a high ground on what is basically a sketch of the map, and go "Oh! Oh! Drops what about drops what about those???" without reading the section in the OP where he specifically points out that yes the way the map looks now would be bad.

Maybe add to the top of the OP "YES I KNOW ABOUT THE HIGH GROUND. I PLAN TO CHANGE IT IN LATER REVISIONS SO YOU CANNOT DROP TANKS ABOVE THE NATURAL LIKE LOST TEMPLE 1.0." to make sure people get the point.

On October 02 2014 01:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Wouldn't the cliffs near the 3rd-nat-4th, which don't seem to be accessible by ground, make drops a bit too powerful ?

On October 02 2014 05:15 hvylobster wrote:
Eventually, the area will be filled with doodads and unpathable by ground; maybe the map maker should have filled the area with neutral add-ons and command centers as placeholders for when he eventually adds doodads there to stop flyby posters who look at the map, see a high ground on what is basically a sketch of the map, and go "Oh! Oh! Drops what about drops what about those???" without reading the section in the OP where he specifically points out that yes the way the map looks now would be bad.

Maybe add to the top of the OP "YES I KNOW ABOUT THE HIGH GROUND. I PLAN TO CHANGE IT IN LATER REVISIONS SO YOU CANNOT DROP TANKS ABOVE THE NATURAL LIKE LOST TEMPLE 1.0." to make sure people get the point.


Also, about the Xel'Naga Tower situation: maybe you could simply place the geyser on the other side of the minerals? If this were ever to make ladder it wouldn't be a very good fix considering the golds would be Standardized with 2gas, but for now moving the geyser would at least take it out of Xel'Naga Tower range.

On October 02 2014 05:23 EatThePath wrote:
Dude, if your highground is unpathable but you don't have time to decorate it yet, just spam placeholder rocks or trees on it, takes 30 seconds. That is the international symbol of undroppable highground area.

While this looks super fun and I love the idea, it would be pretty ick in "real games" I think. Super easy 4 bases for protoss or mech, then pooooooosh.

On October 02 2014 05:52 [PkF] Wire wrote:


I admit I didn't read it and therefore posted too quickly. No need to go berserk on that though.

On October 03 2014 04:34 hvylobster wrote:

Sorry, the post was half to you and half to the OP; I figured a ton of people would make the same understandable mistake you made so I wanted to stop that ASAP. Constructive criticism of the map is good, an endless parade of people who are correct by the author's admission tends to drown out the healthy criticism.