[M] (4) Corruption by monitor

On July 25 2011 03:17 Ragoo wrote:
Oh yeah, I love to see that you use your solid 4player rotation map skills for something truly innovative now! I'd looove to see how this plays out in pro matches. <3

edit: Aesthetics are really interesting. I didn't ever think about using the Haven Grass Rocky like that (it's Haven Grass Rocky, right?!^^).

On July 25 2011 03:25 IronManSC wrote:
Natural is wicked easy to defend, dont you think?

On July 25 2011 03:31 monitor wrote:
[...]Siege tanks can also hit the natural gas and part of the mineral line (although I'm trying to fix this).

On July 25 2011 03:59 Serashin wrote:
You sir just created the ULTIMATE PvZ 2 base Turtle map .
Thank you very much !
I have already a merely unbeatable strategy in mind other then that you problably know yourself that this was a unreasonable to use that mapsize for a 4 player map it clearly is shown reflected on your layout / the way ressources are placed i dont see this map ever getting played,
except maybe for a TvT showmatch/grudgematch just for the lolz.
I also feel like there is somewhat missing a clear 3rd collor and a half clear 4th collor in the design coppeled with dodats that support that design flow wich is extremly hard to archieve on a 4 player roational symetry map. it is way easier on maps like shakuras platueau where the theme can flow easier over the map.
Such a layout main / natural high/low ground is sadly against game balance maths.

I feel like the only way of making such a layout viable is to add backdoorrocks at the highground natural on equal cliff level i see it still to easy to defend if it were a lower ground cliff level and a higher cliff level seems imbalanced depending on some sitations aswell.

A big error for a 4 player map that is not Tal´darim altar or Terminus re wich are in my view already unreasonable maps is to provide 4 Xel Naga Towers on it especialy with such little size 150x150 seems better to work.

I honestly dont have made up my mind what exactly is the best number of towers for a medium/small sized rotational symertry map. But i strongly tend to 3 towers wich is very hard to support with athestics/dodats/terrain design but i tend to having them spread out in such a way that their circles nearly connect placed at the edge of the middle 4 towers are just not something you can constantly fight over or watch over.

To also not see a single drop of water makes me:
1. thirsty
2.wonder how there is so much gras / plants and zero trees:O

A thing you should never add on a map is race imbalance wich you just did with that creep , i think your mind was not correctly set how to make they layout in such way that from main to natural 2-3 creep tumors are needed to connect the creep.

The map truly is an experiment wich requires allot of thoughts and time to watch over it ,
use this advice to your own risk !
"rest of policy copy paste stuff to not blame someone"

On July 25 2011 04:42 Serashin wrote:
I smile for having wasted my time to give advice on lazy work.

Fact map as it is is not ready for being able to play

It's been played quite a bit, and its played out pretty solid. Unusual, but solid. And yes, games got off of 2 bases.

im pretty sure you can create a high/ lowground layout wich allows the usual zerg invest into creep tumor himself without creating imbalance.

There is no imbalance with the neutral creep tumor. Protoss and Terran can still wall off. Zerg can just use early defense, and can be aggressive vs. a turtling 2base opponent.

yes the trees i noticed after the pic loaded after 2 minutes thats how cute my internet is atm , wich wont allow me to demonstrate my strategy on this mapexpansions

Uhhh... how do the trees affect the strategy?

and it is not 2 base the entire game but 2 base to such a point that every cost effective trade is extremly hard / basicly impossible to achieve.

Okay... so just a 2 base timing into expand? Please give more details, otherwise there really is no point in giving feedback.

It works prety much the same on Shakuras plateau sadly it doesnt work against terran cause they have nukes wich you cant prevent with my strategy .

Crazy! Still have no idea what you're talking about, but would like to hear it if nukes counter it.

I also dont have a NA acc and i get with my current connection droped from game and make oppenent lag.

Oh okay... I can use the iCCup EU account, does that work for you?

The radius is also something what you should never change of a xel naga tower its like a ressource wich shouldnt get cut

No it isn't. Towers often have their radius changed, and there is every reason to fiddle with it. If you left it at 22, every one would be the same- smaller allows more on the map, and makes them less of "oh I'm too lazy to scout... I'll just take the tower".

and you say yourself that you were forced to do this but all comes down to your initial map size choice .

If the map was bigger, it would completely screw up distances. Right now there exactly how I want them to be (# of tumors to expansions, tank range, pylon warp ins, open space for surrounds, choke for FF's, wall offs, etc.). The tower range is decreased to allow 4 towers.

wich is why this map is and will stay unplayable for competive matches forever however basic ideas can be used for a playable map.

Mmm... I see no reasons why it is unplayable.

also its hard to recognize the water except for the belshir plant in it given reflection light effects used with it.

I hadn't intended for the water to be seen from the overview. It's completely visible in-game.

also this adivice with high ground natural lowground space with making backdoorrocks is ment as general point for such a main / natural design

I absolutely cannot add a backdoor to this map, because that would create massive positional imbalances for the counterclockwise player to attack into, way worse than Blistering Sands.

you need more space to attack such expansions.

The natural? Right now the point of it is to be pretty safe.

just look how it is at XNC there are used sight blockers now make a picture in your mind with rocks there and you are safe early against helion run / by harass cause those dudes need long to melt a rock o.O

Runby harass is not what I'm worried abut at all. It's aggression and timing pushes that will kill any attempt to macro, because static defense cannot cover both entrances. It would also make the distance for aggression ridiculously short for the counterclockwise player (positionally imbalanced). Your idea has the same problem Blistering Sands does.

On July 25 2011 05:06 monitor wrote:


I added in my comments beneath each section (your writing is red). Pleeeeaaase use more examples that I can figure out what you mean (ie Zerg won't be able to do X because of X).

On July 25 2011 07:11 neobowman wrote:
Oh, by the way, forgot to mention. It's impossible for Protoss to Forge FE against Zerg on this map because of the creep. Two spine crawlers and the front buildings are gone. A few more and the protoss has to put up mass cannons to defend against a possible all-in.

On July 25 2011 11:07 Barrin wrote:

You would be able to use one of your earliest probes to kill the creep tumor (4 or 5 hits, right?) and the creep would be almost gone by the time your forge was finished? Maybe? I guess that's like a 30-50 mineral investment, but potentially worth it.