| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HE2hB.jpg) Map overview ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/88IJk.jpg) Crux GSL Whirlwind Created by Crux_Winpark(=WinparkPrime) Suggest players 2-4 Playable 160 X 160 Published KR(GSL_돌개바람)/NA,EU(GSL Whirlwind) In 2012 GSTL Season 2 http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/ TeamCrux.tistory.com www.SC2Prime.com Twitter: @WinparkPrime | ||
|
Zaphid
Czech Republic1860 Posts
| ||
|
Kmatt
United States1019 Posts
| ||
|
Shiger
Sweden118 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
| ||
|
ScorpSCII
Denmark499 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I am torn about the little hole between the natural and 3rd. Without it, it's far too open. With it, it makes it really hard for zerg to engage in the late game. I think it might be better to use a small clump of doodads here instead, like a line of trees. Maybe even something destructible, like overlapping small rocks (or a custom destructible object). The rest of the map seems fine for chokiness. Very nice decision to have LosB at 3,6,9,12 in the middle, providing open space for big engagements but preserving the danger of rounding those obstructing arms. Nice work!! | ||
|
Happystreet
550 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On April 08 2012 03:30 winpark wrote: IronManSc, That is too fixed idea... I don't want to make an imitation.. I agree. I think making the base on lowground would actually make it a bit too standard. | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
Edit- Already on NA! My life is complete | ||
|
AnalyZ
France32 Posts
| ||
|
PolskaGora
United States547 Posts
| ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 08 2012 02:18 Barrin wrote: Excellent concept, excellent execution for 8m. Perhaps the concept would fit better with 6m (needs some choke resizing for 6m), but I really love the way it is now for 8m anyway. 10/10, my new favorite 8m map. can you please stop spamming every map thread with variations on "it would fit better with 6m." It's really, really annoying. If you can't appreciate and comment on the maps for what they are, but rather what you wish they would be, maybe you shouldn't comment at all. | ||
|
Grohg
United States243 Posts
On April 08 2012 02:18 Barrin wrote: Excellent concept, excellent execution for 8m. Perhaps the concept would fit better with 6m (needs some choke resizing for 6m), but I really love the way it is now for 8m anyway. 10/10, my new favorite 8m map. I think you need to stop littering every map thread with your 6m concept. It's a cool idea but the game isn't moving that direction in earnest. You're promoting yourself every time I see you post now...please, let people focus on the map that was made, not a hypothetical version that would tickle your fancy more. It's a holier-than-thou type feeling that you're exhibiting now and I don't think you want that image. This map looks solid...the first four bases seem quite easy to hold, however. Would a base on the low ground be better at the 4th? Attacking up ramps for every base there makes it a difficult nut to crack. This might not be the case but I can see siege tanks on both the 3rd and 4th base ramps making Terran's main-4th hard to touch. The caverns in the middle of the map are good for creating some chokes but there are enough attack paths to allow Zerg to flank and counter. FF should still be strong in each corridor as well so Protoss armies aren't simply overrun in PvT or PvZ with mass bio/roaches. I like the layout overall...it's good to see some new maps like this addressing a lot of the problems previous maps have had. The choke/openness seems just about right and I think that might be the biggest thing most maps have issues with now. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
When I saw the map I thought great, this is a very standard 4p rotational, overall very solid, just maybe a bit too easy to expand. So I thought this was pretty great for 6m cos you want bases to be a bit easier to take with that concept. And that's what I also said to Barrin^^ So stop hating on him, he is not the only one who thinks like this about this map. + Show Spoiler + I am not a convinced supporter of 6m, I think it's too hard to theorycraft about it... Nice job winpark! As I said, very solid, good positional balance, nice aesthetics. Maybe just a bit easy to expand and not very innovative. But I still like it, one of the best 4p rotational maps  | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 08 2012 06:37 Ragoo wrote: @the two people before me: When I saw the map I thought great, this is a very standard 4p rotational, overall very solid, just maybe a bit too easy to expand. So I thought this was pretty great for 6m cos you want bases to be a bit easier to take with that concept. And that's what I also said to Barrin^^ So stop hating on him, he is not the only one who thinks like this about this map. who's hating anybody? It's just not relevant to the thread and seeing it brought up again and again is annoying. If Barrin wants the Crux guys to make 6m maps, maybe he should PM/mail and ask them instead of bringing it up in threads that aren't about the subject. It's extra tiresome because 6m isn't in any way a proven concept, certainly not going by the replays released so far, and I'd even say it's an inherently flawed idea for a number of reasons not related to this thread. | ||
|
PolskaGora
United States547 Posts
Doing a FFE.... + Show Spoiler [FFE Wall-In] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b28Jf.png?1?2732) The bottom ramp works moderately well with a FFE. Especially interesting is the double neutral supply depot, one at the the bottom of the ramp to the main, one on the top of the ramp to the natural. This definitely helps out with a FFE, since it obviously means you need one structure less to finish the wall-off. While we're on the subject of pylon placement, the pylon can be placed in a position to finish the wall-off with a zealot. However, your zealot placement must be perfect since it is essentially the maximum amount of space allowable before lings can squeeze through. This means that lings can get very good surface area on the blocking zealot. As a result, I would probably recommend that people should finish the wall-in completely with a second cannon as shown below, and simply break down the neutral supply depot when ready to move out. You can also place the cybernetics core in a way so that it can't be hit by roaches while also providing a secondary wall-in should they destroy the neutral supply depot walling you in. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mktFo.png?1?7383) When it comes to the FFE concept I line out in a post above... + Show Spoiler [FFE Wall-In #2] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YOj3G.png?1?1716) No, simply no. Forget I even mentioned it. Lol, when I thought of this idea I hadn't taken into account that the map was so big. As you can see, any zerg player can easily run by with no risk at all for reasons that are obvious and won't bother explaining. However, I do believe that in the late game when trying to expand to 5+ bases AKA when trying to expand to the other wings on this map, such a concept could be effectively used to block off aggression and ling run-bys and therefore essentially lock down a whole new 3 bases for you. Placing down a lot of gates and cannons will be especially easy with all the mineral excess you will probably be banking at that point. Finally, as to the tank concept I also lined out in a post above.... + Show Spoiler [Tank Placement] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oioIG.png?1?6978) This is the first image, where I sieged tanks on the ramps leading to the two 3rds, three tanks on the low ground and a tank on the ramp leading to the natural. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5JJ9o.png?1?8755) This is the same site, however I only kept the tanks on the high ground of the the two 3rds sieged in order to get a better understanding of how far the tanks can reach into the choke between 3rds. Using this information, terran players can better understand how to place tanks strategically when playing TvZ and TvT. I'm no terran player so my tank placement probably isn't optimal or maybe even very strategically sound but it looks to me that if terrans siege up in a similar fashion, especially with more than the ten tanks I used in this picture, they can very easily defend any pushes directly into the main entrance/choke, especially vs a ling/bling composition. + Show Spoiler [Further analysis of tank placement] + If the terran uses planetary fortresses to defend the 3rd placed away from the main it will make it that much easier for the terran player to set up tanks on that high ground and not have to worry about ling flanks. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Jwib.png?2) However, the 3rd that's directly underneath the main has a mineral field at which a planetary fortress's range isn't large enough to cover the tanks, so additional defense will be required there, as seen below. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q4yVj.png?1?7486) Lings will simply be able to do a quick hit-and-run, with no repercussions from the planetary. Maybe planetary fortress range will provide enough coverage to secure this tank placement, although it probably won't be. Siege tanks have a range of 13 while an upgraded planetary fortress has a range of 7, so judging it visually the planetary will only be able to hit enemy units that are closer than half the distance to the tanks. Not enough. Perhaps a forward planetary at the top of that ramp can be an alternative, not sure if that's the most efficient answer though. + Show Spoiler + I suppose if you clicked this spoiler this means you took the initiative to read through this whole post so thank you! In conclusion, I really love this map! It seems very balanced for the most part. Protoss has a viable FFE and easy enough transition to grab a third, the large size of the map allows zerg to quickly expand to either of the thirds furthest away from the opponent while feeling safe at the same time, and tank placement can be very effective on this map. In fact, I would argue that siege tanks make the main entrance/choke to the terran player's wing too easy to defend, especially when tied in with good planetary/bunker placement. As a result, the only thing I would change is make one of the two third bases unelevated, so that there is no high ground advantage defending it. This still allows zerg a relatively easy expansion and could also lead players to choose more strategically as to which of the thirds to expand to first. Great job, I definitely think we will be seeing this map in future tournament map pools soon! | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
GSL Code S
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
