The problem with the way many of you are thinking is that this is not SC1. Tanks in sc2 are quite weak TBH. Thus it's not necessarily terran favored at all.

ComradeDover

Bulgaria758 Posts

December 22 2009 14:37 GMT

#42

This isn't SC1 though, and from what I've read Terran are a lot more mobile and aren't the slow-push race anymore. Also from what I've read, producing 9001 tanks isn't as viable as it used to be (Mostly because Marauders do the job just as well), so it's a bit pre-mature to say this map favors Terran. If it did, though, I'd be more worried about Reapers marching straight from a player's natural to the other's third.

What jumps out at me about the map is how it borrow's Fighting Spirit's "triangle" in the starting corners. Once a player expands twice, his main will be fairly safe from drops.

ZeroCartin

Costa Rica2390 Posts

December 22 2009 14:51 GMT

#43

On December 22 2009 17:44 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Cant wait to get my hands on those Xel'Naga watch towers.

lmao

you hate them so much

Kaniol

Poland5551 Posts

December 22 2009 15:03 GMT

#44

On December 22 2009 15:40 Comeh wrote:

Show nested quote +

David Kim > T, P, Z, F, J, B.
NERFFFFFF

Acronym for Stork is not B, but S :|

I like this map, and i agree that it will probably work differently for SC2 than it would for SC:BW, so hope to see it in action

vOddy

Sweden402 Posts

December 22 2009 18:06 GMT

#45

Well, protoss gets teleporting units really early in SC2, and they get a unit that can teleport other units way faster than they get the arbiter in SC1. (Though of course SC2 is contantly changing). This map would suck for SC!, and it may very well suck for SC2 as well, but it could also work well for SC2, considering the added mobility Protoss gets. My only concern is that the middle expansions are so damn close to each other, it's like Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars...

789

United States959 Posts

December 22 2009 20:17 GMT

#46

I don't think a map like this would work in SC1. Any kind of contains would be very strong and tank contains would be damned near unbreakable. With the miss chance up hill gone in SC2 it would still be difficult to break contains, but easier. You would still have to contend with keeping spotting and filing through a narrow ramp. You would still definitely be at a big positional disadvantage.

The natural and the third seem way to small, barely big enough for the cc/hatch/nexus and a few defensive structures. Unfortunately the main isn't THAT much bigger. This seems like either a rush map or at least a race to contain type of map. It is definitely cramped.
Overall, I think it is ok, but I don't particularily like it.

CharlieMurphy

United States22895 Posts

December 22 2009 21:04 GMT

#47

in B4 nightmarejoo.

Wasted space in the corners.

Osmoses

Sweden5302 Posts

December 22 2009 22:10 GMT

#48

I wanna play so bad... I'm at the point where I look at screenshots of maps and imagine where my tanks would be.

MamiyaOtaru

United States1687 Posts

December 22 2009 22:34 GMT

#49

own the middle cliff, prevent anyone from expanding below it or moving into the middle, and own two yellow mineral clumps. I guess it's not as bad with so many cliff-hopping units, but it seems like siege tank heaven

edahl

Norway483 Posts

December 22 2009 23:09 GMT

#50

Terran map for sure.
Everyone else will have to play it like an island map imo.
I'm thinking in terms of BW mind you.

n00bonicPlague

United States197 Posts

December 22 2009 23:34 GMT

#51

Since no one else bothered, and because I was bored:
+ Show Spoiler +

I think it's an okay map.
Every strong point has a weakness.
XeNWaTs and Rocks in good places.
A bit cozy, but nice.

SquashMonster

United States7 Posts

December 22 2009 23:58 GMT

#52

On December 22 2009 11:41 TestSubject893 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Blizzard seems to be trying to force a certain style of play on this map (I'm inferring this out of the above quote), making all of these criticized aspects seem intentional to me. I guess we'll see how this map design philosophy plays out once beta comes out.

Trying to make a variety of maps that force specific styles of play seems like a good idea for a game that's just starting. The mapping community can see which maps get the most (professional) play and which are the most fun, and combine traits of those maps to make ones that are more interesting. If we started with a bunch of "generic" maps then any attempts to spice things up could be seen as gimmicky; worse yet, the type of map Blizzard's map-makers thought was "generic" might not be the best type of map for the game.

emikochan

United Kingdom232 Posts

December 23 2009 00:30 GMT

#53

Nice n00bonic, really makes those wasted corners glaringly obvious... imo they should put a ramp opposite the watchtower, 2 routes, keep the enemy guessing.

This does look quite wip, those bases are so square. Can anyone see any tall grass ? or any good places to put it ? Imo the path between the 2 naturals should be full of it, so you could sneak forces between them even if the cliff was covered.

*shrug* looks nice I guess but the proof is in the playing...

(btw get ready to change your sig to ??/??/10 =p)

n00bonicPlague

United States197 Posts

December 23 2009 01:02 GMT

#54

On December 23 2009 09:30 emikochan wrote:
Nice n00bonic, really makes those wasted corners glaringly obvious... imo they should put a ramp opposite the watchtower, 2 routes, keep the enemy guessing.

This does look quite wip, those bases are so square. Can anyone see any tall grass ? or any good places to put it ? Imo the path between the 2 naturals should be full of it, so you could sneak forces between them even if the cliff was covered.

*shrug* looks nice I guess but the proof is in the playing...

Yeah, I'm not sure what's goin' on in those wasted corners. I can't tell if their impassable terrain or just blank space.

On December 23 2009 09:30 emikochan wrote:
(btw get ready to change your sig to ??/??/10 =p)

lol I totally forgot about my sig over here :D

Trezeguet

United States2656 Posts

December 23 2009 01:19 GMT

#55

Do the bases look kinda small in a way where you would really have to squeeze in all your buildings?

n00bonicPlague

United States197 Posts

December 23 2009 01:28 GMT

#56

Yeah it looks pretty tight to me.

Think this'll be the one we'll see in BR5?

Synwave

United States2803 Posts

December 23 2009 03:29 GMT

#57

One thing to keep in mind is the cliff scaling units. It shifts the possible focus from ramp holding turtling to spending resources on cliff scalers and air. Perhaps thats what they meant by mobile?
Its definitely a skirmish map in its scope at least how I see it. Quick decisive games where an exploited weakness means little chance for recovery.

789

United States959 Posts

December 23 2009 03:34 GMT

#58

IMO this shouldn't be BR5, but that's because I want to see a 2v2 battle report lol. They said they are making maps with team games specifically in mind - so we won't just have to use like 4 player 1v1 maps. But all we have seen of them so far were a couple low quality matches on youtube. They should do at least one 2v2 BR. It would hopefully let us see a wider variety of units and what not.