[M] (2) DF Deadlands

On May 08 2013 03:06 Timetwister22 wrote:
Ok, this is kinda badass. Very solid third layout, fourth is interesting, good use of a half base, fifths are fun....I mean, there is so much going for this map. Though, the mains are quite small, and the towers are really powerful. However, both of those are easy fixes if needs be. Great job, really impressive stuff here.

On May 08 2013 03:23 KingCorwin wrote:
i love that the first three bases are higher grounds, and none of the rest are! well done with this one scorp. now gimmie dat map analyzer

On May 08 2013 03:32 IeZaeL wrote:
Very nice and solid map. Both layout & Aestethics are beautifully done. One thing i do not like is the minerals directly blocking some paths , to me it seems just soo much strange.

How did you get this analyzer , btw ? I'd really need it :D Did You make it ?

On May 08 2013 05:38 moskonia wrote:
Very standard map, except the 5 and 11 base the map is very similar to a more choked up Daybreak. The cool thing about this map though is that there are many small paths which can be used by a smart player. All these paths does make it a bit Zerg favored, but with the current mindset that Zerg is weak I think its OK.

Personally I don't get why the mid base is halved, unlike for example Daybreak, the middle base is not the center of focus, since there are many paths at the sides that can be used to force someone who is turtling at the mid to get him out of position.

Overall very decent map, and while the differences from the standard are little it has its own special attributes which makes it different from other maps.

On May 08 2013 06:00 Timetwister22 wrote:


What? Where this map does fall into the "standard" category, it is certainly pushing the limits. The third is cool as hell, the fourth is just as awesome, and the fifth is pretty neat too. Rarely is there something cool about a fifth. The middle of the map is quite different in the fact that it helps promote high aggression. To this day, we have not see a map that encourages high aggression since Dual Sight, and Dual Sight wasn't even executed well. This is really one best and only well executed maps that promotes high aggression that I've ever seen. Thus, I'd like to disqualify your "very standard map" accusation. This map is very different from other 'standard' maps.

On May 08 2013 06:18 moskonia wrote:

Its better to throw in one or two things, rather than a completely different kind of map from what we are used to.

On May 08 2013 06:18 moskonia wrote:

I don't see how does this map encourage aggression, can you elaborate on that?

On May 09 2013 05:37 ScorpSCII wrote:

Aggression is encouraged in the way all of the bases and (especially) the pathing are set up.

On May 09 2013 07:32 moskonia wrote:


That doesn't really tell me anything, you need to be more specific, for example on dual site aggression was stronger because of the open natural. Basically aggression is encouraged on a map that has a low defenders advantage, while this map has nothing of this sort, at least the way I see it. This is why I think the map does not encourage more aggression than any other map. I am not saying this is a bad thing, but I just can't see why this map favors aggression.

On May 09 2013 13:58 Timetwister22 wrote:


Well, you can if you understand the game well enough. I mean, it's just how the bases themselves are arranged. They're not really more open or have features that allow aggression, it's just how they are arranged that makes it easier to attack. The distances between them, the placement of the mineral lines, the distance between the bases, the distance from opponent bases, air-air distance vs ground-ground distance, etc. These all contribute to the aggressive flow this map has. Yet, you can't really just pin point a particular thing like "an open natural".