[M] (2) Tikal

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16834 Posts

May 06 2021 00:39 GMT

[M] (2) Tikal

(click to enlarge)

Size: 108×168
Spawns: Top Right, Bottom Right
Published to: NA, EU, KR (as [ZoU] Tikal)
Rush distances:
Top of main ramp to top of main ramp: 31

Description:

Tikal has a very short rush distance (same as Beckett Industries). To compensate for that its expansions are mostly further away from the opponent and the natural wall is only 7 tiles wide (two buildings + gap) which helps against 12 pools. It has a central forward fortress time base that's good to control and is near the watchtower, several bases exposed mineral lines, is fairly choky, and has very little airspace. There's some speed and slow zones to facilitate maneuvering, and surrounds.

I made this since I wanted to make a more elongated reflective symmetry rush map, since that's something we haven't had much. Terran might still be too good on it (like on most recent rush maps) due to the chokiness though.

Other maps: https://imgur.com/a/Vwyn9sl

CharactR

Canada51 Posts

May 06 2021 23:57 GMT

There's never a map you make that I don't think is interesting or refreshing in some way. I do agree that it's a bit choky in places, but otherwise, it's still a cool-looking map.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16834 Posts

May 07 2021 00:55 GMT

On May 07 2021 08:57 CharactR wrote:
There's never a map you make that I don't think is interesting or refreshing in some way. I do agree that it's a bit choky in places, but otherwise, it's still a cool-looking map.

Thank you. For better or for worse I do try to make most of my maps different from the norm.

MJG

United Kingdom49 Posts

May 07 2021 08:30 GMT

Can you explain the thinking behind the low-ground bases that are behind the watchtower bases?

I feel like all they do is needlessly obstruct army movement.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16834 Posts

May 07 2021 15:19 GMT

On May 07 2021 17:30 MJG wrote:
Can you explain the thinking behind the low-ground bases that are behind the watchtower bases?

I feel like all they do is needlessly obstruct army movement.

It's mainly because I wanted 7 bases per side rather than 6.

Husyelt

276 Posts

May 14 2021 18:05 GMT

I almost would like if the slow and fast zones, (on the left side,) were switched. I do love that the actual middle section of the map has no bases, and is a positional battle field. Great layout.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16834 Posts

May 14 2021 18:16 GMT

On May 15 2021 03:05 Husyelt wrote:
I almost would like if the slow and fast zones, (on the left side,) were switched. I do love that the actual middle section of the map has no bases, and is a positional battle field. Great layout.

Hmm... I'd originally not done that because I felt it made the leftmost bases too close to each other, but looking at how things turned out I don't think that's the case anymore.

Yeah I like the suggestion, I'll swap the zones.

sTYleZerG-eX

Mexico464 Posts

May 19 2021 14:22 GMT

I like it, but why so much wasted space at the corners?

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16834 Posts

May 19 2021 15:06 GMT

On May 19 2021 23:22 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:
I like it, but why so much wasted space at the corners?

It's not "wasted" space. Reflect symmetry maps often don't want to use the corners (e.g Newkirk Precinct) because you want pathways to flow towards the middle. Sometimes you want to fit in a map in the corner furthest from the opponent, sometimes you don't. One option isn't superior to the other.

Using up the entire rectangle doesn't automatically make a map better--there's nothing special about a rectangle. You do want to be careful about unnecessarily adding airspace, but in this case it's not going to be abusive or anything.

Please or register to reply.

[M] (2) Tikal

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming