My idea behind this two-player map is to use a standard expansion layout, but encourage some unusual gameplay. Each player can get up to five expansions, but they are slightly more spread out than on most competitive maps. To compensate, the choke sizes are smaller which makes defending the expos easier. The center of the map is lowground and the towers promote moving around the outside of the map in the mid to late game. Army positioning, harassment, and map control all play a big role in determining the outcome of the game.
Overview (Updated 12/21/11):
Numbers # of Players: 2 Playable Bounds: 126x132 Tileset: Korhal Main to Main: 44s Natural to Natural: 37s
The map is currently uploaded to the NA server under the name "ESV Korhal Compound by monitor" and "TLMC Korhal Compound". Feedback is greatly appreciated.
Changelog 1.6 -Removed doodads in center to encourage moving through middle -Changed cliffs to Port Zion Manmade so the main ramp appears to be 1 forcefield wide -Changed lighting to BelShir to be easier on the eyes -Added rocks to part of the ramp to the fifth to make it easier to defend Resources:
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
On October 02 2011 07:53 neobowman wrote: Terrible. Go back to Africa. + Show Spoiler +
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
Lol what?
I agree that the mains are a bit awkward now. I think they might actually be a little bit too small. If so, I think I'll extend the horizontal map borders and increase the size of the main a little bit which will also give more dropping room along the sides.
On October 02 2011 07:53 neobowman wrote: Terrible. Go back to Africa. + Show Spoiler +
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
Lol what?
I agree that the mains are a bit awkward now. I think they might actually be a little bit too small. If so, I think I'll extend the horizontal map borders and increase the size of the main a little bit which will also give more dropping room along the sides.
If you increase the width to fix the mains, I would also widen the side paths a little bit. You say you want circular army movement, but those paths are a bit narrow for a max supply army. Those paths are used later in the game, and fought at later in the game, so I would provide more space in light of that. I applaud the proportions use in such a map with such small dimensions.
The first thing I thought was that the towers are so hard to push into from mid. I guess that's the point but... it seems like most of the time they are a forgone conclusion for both players on their side, simply providing warning of an army moving in for an attack as opposed to being an asset in contention. Obviously maps have different styles for the towers and this is okay but it seems undynamic to me.
On October 02 2011 07:53 neobowman wrote: Terrible. Go back to Africa. + Show Spoiler +
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
Lol what?
I agree that the mains are a bit awkward now. I think they might actually be a little bit too small. If so, I think I'll extend the horizontal map borders and increase the size of the main a little bit which will also give more dropping room along the sides.
If you increase the width to fix the mains, I would also widen the side paths a little bit. You say you want circular army movement, but those paths are a bit narrow for a max supply army. Those paths are used later in the game, and fought at later in the game, so I would provide more space in light of that. I applaud the proportions use in such a map with such small dimensions.
The first thing I thought was that the towers are so hard to push into from mid. I guess that's the point but... it seems like most of the time they are a forgone conclusion for both players on their side, simply providing warning of an army moving in for an attack as opposed to being an asset in contention. Obviously maps have different styles for the towers and this is okay but it seems undynamic to me.
Good point, but I think the side is big enough for a 200/200 army to move through, but not engage in. My original hopes were that you'd really only defend the gold there- if you want to engage, you'd attack into the natural or fourth instead of there. The side is still used a lot for harassment and 2-3base fights (and reinforcing). I think it will probably be okay right now, but if the issue comes up in more test games I'll definitely change it.
Note: I also want to avoid making the paths too "homogeneous" throughout the map.
Main - Nat - 3rd - 4th is some of the best expansion flow I've seen. I absolutely love it. For some reason I don't care for where the golds are though. I'll think about it and post sometime later when I think of a suggestion. Overall, great map though bud, keep it up!
No offense but... it's boring, isn't it? The base arrangement is so straightforward, there's very little room for harassment, and the middle is open with a couple of high grounds thrown in to break it up. It certainly looks nice, as all your maps do, but as far as game play it's just completely boring. It really reminds me of a Blizzard map, minus a couple of rocks and other gimmicks. It's probably well balanced, but it's just bland.
I agree that it is somewhat boring right now. I suppose I wasn't intending to do anything really fancy yet- I might make some minor adjustments on this to increase harass. I'll work on something very new for my next one though.
Very nice standard expo layout, just very well done. I really like the middle and the aesthetics are awesome.
No pic of the tower range makes me sad.
That contrast with the grass seems a bit much tho. Like the grass is sooo green and I think it's a bit much. Maybe you could lighten it up with a brighter grass texture or foliage or whatever?!
Looking forward to this being played and submitted for the TL contest. Also good to hear that you work on something more creative after this solid map (:
Some comments mentions it as a boring/bland map. I personally find it to be intreseting map with the flow of the expansions (third into fourth). Also a bland/boring map isn't equal to bad, every map doesn't need to be full of new and creative features.
The only problem that i can see from the overview is the rather small main combined with a large part being siegeable from the lowground. I guess it's not a huge problem since it "works" on xel'naga caverns but something i think should be kept to a smaller area rather then the entire main.
Looking forward to some awesome matches on it in the weeklies.
It seems that it would be very dynamic with the multiple paths.
The centre of the map appears a little small and I think may make it difficult for zerg to engage perhaps forcing zerg players to play more counterattack heavy and limiting the effectiveness of other options but I haven't seen the map in game yet so I couldn't say for sure. A solution may be to make the open spaces more open because the map right now seems to be almost all the same openness which may not put as much emphasis on positioning as a more varied map would.
On October 04 2011 07:01 Callynn wrote: This map looks very intense, it reminds me of quicksand.
Thanks! I guess that's a good thing?
On October 04 2011 10:37 NuclearWINtr wrote: It seems that it would be very dynamic with the multiple paths.
The centre of the map appears a little small and I think may make it difficult for zerg to engage perhaps forcing zerg players to play more counterattack heavy and limiting the effectiveness of other options but I haven't seen the map in game yet so I couldn't say for sure. A solution may be to make the open spaces more open because the map right now seems to be almost all the same openness which may not put as much emphasis on positioning as a more varied map would.
All in all a great concept and aesthetics.
True, a lot of the map is similarly choked. I think there are some good open spaces in the "outer-ring", with some key chokes along the outside. You might be right, but there hasn't been this imbalance from the testing so far. I'll keep an eye out though!
On October 04 2011 10:37 NuclearWINtr wrote: It seems that it would be very dynamic with the multiple paths.
The centre of the map appears a little small and I think may make it difficult for zerg to engage perhaps forcing zerg players to play more counterattack heavy and limiting the effectiveness of other options but I haven't seen the map in game yet so I couldn't say for sure. A solution may be to make the open spaces more open because the map right now seems to be almost all the same openness which may not put as much emphasis on positioning as a more varied map would.
All in all a great concept and aesthetics.
True, a lot of the map is similarly choked. I think there are some good open spaces in the "outer-ring", with some key chokes along the outside. You might be right, but there hasn't been this imbalance from the testing so far. I'll keep an eye out though!
I was thinking more of a limited set of play styles as zerg and less of overall balance as the chokes balance out the multiple paths quite well leaving a lot of play styles available as toss and terran, i.e. bio, zealot templar, colossus, mech etc., but not quite as many as zerg due to the difficulty of setting up a strong position outside as a defensive zerg e.g. a concave on top of a wide ramp a la tal darim. You stated that these chokes were part of your concept and I don't see how one would change this without affecting the way the other two races would have to play. Of course, a variation in the chokes around the map would help let zergs figure out "okay, I'm going to counterattack while I set the rest of my army here".
I really hope I don't sound too critical because I really like the map as a whole as it is one of the the best executions of the "circular army movement" concept I've seen (much better than desert oasis :D) and love the aesthetics too (reminds me a lot of some brood war maps).
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag7va.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wHfXA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xBVkG.png)
ESVmonitor.
