Basically every map is only getting bigger and bigger, with more and more bases so I wanted to try going the opposite route a bit and try bringing back a smaller, aggressive map. It could just mean players will 2-base all game long and if that's the case I'll try to tweak things to make the map easier to expand on. I tried to do that the best I could by adding 2 very useful d-rocks to increase the m2m & n2n distances. The forward 3rd base was changed up to make it a little harder to pull off harassment on because many units from the middle will now not be able to attack the entire base and now if needed you can set up static defense behind the minerals. I also believe that both choices of 3rds can offer different styles of aggression & defensive plays so I'm hoping it keeps games fresh and exciting.
As always, any and all feedback would be appreciated!
Korhal Killzone is a smaller than normal, low base, aggressive 1v1 map. It has only 10 total bases, 1 watchtower and a playable bounds of 138x130. There is quite a lot of dead space around the Main as well as the SE and NW corners, so the overall map is even smaller then the bounds say.
Basically every map is only getting bigger and bigger with more and more bases so I wanted to try going the opposite route a bit and try bringing back a smaller, lower base, aggressive map. It could just mean players will 2-base all game long sure and if that's the case I'll try to tweak things to make the map easier to expand on. I tried to do that the best I could with rock towers to cut off attack paths and making some areas a little more choked off. We'll see how it plays out. Also, might still do some more aesthetic work, I just wanted to push out the map this afternoon because I'll be away from my sc2 pc for the next couple days.
As always, any and all feedback would be appreciated!
When theorycrafting I can only think that it will turn out as a 2-base all-in map (and terrible for Zerg : not only it is small, but also chokey), but I could very well be wrong. I'd be really interested to see how it plays out in real games. I really like the aesthetics though. Simple yet effective.
I just take the fact that the map is small. But I think there is not a single spot where Zerg can get a proper fight with melee units (at least in lategame), the map is very choky (force field heaven). That being said, I feel like Terran can take advantage of many features here.
>> the center with the tower - Siege there to fully deny gas mining at possible forward 3rd >> highground behind clockwise 3rd (if u would take it as 3rd) - Siege there or position bio. Getting even better when u take down 1 rock tower to block pathing or the outer 2 rock towers to wall in completely. Sounds very ugly for Zerg. >> since its so choky u can effectly block pathing with 1 or 2 rax or some depots at several spots on the map
I am not sure about SH play in ZvP and ZvT tho. Having a choky map makes it very hard for the opponents to engage. The size of the map is making this even more difficult.
When theorycrafting I can only think that it will turn out as a 2-base all-in map (and terrible for Zerg : not only it is small, but also chokey), but I could very well be wrong. I'd be really interested to see how it plays out in real games. I really like the aesthetics though. Simple yet effective.
Yeah, it's something I worry about as well, zerg could have a problem, especially ZvP because Immortal Sentry pushes could be very strong, but there are also a lot of good concaves that the defender has compared to the attacker. Basically one of the bases would take ~5 perfect forcefields to block it off, the other ~3. I'm experimenting with the size & paths just because we haven't seen a smaller aggressive map since...umm...Wings of Liberty? haha.
I just take the fact that the map is small. But I think there is not a single spot where Zerg can get a proper fight with melee units (at least in lategame), the map is very choky (force field heaven). That being said, I feel like Terran can take advantage of many features here.
>> the center with the tower - Siege there to fully deny gas mining at possible forward 3rd >> highground behind clockwise 3rd (if u would take it as 3rd) - Siege there or position bio. Getting even better when u take down 1 rock tower to block pathing or the outer 2 rock towers to wall in completely. Sounds very ugly for Zerg. >> since its so choky u can effectly block pathing with 1 or 2 rax or some depots at several spots on the map
I am not sure about SH play in ZvP and ZvT tho. Having a choky map makes it very hard for the opponents to engage. The size of the map is making this even more difficult.
Don't hate me
Yeah, ZvP worries me quite a bit, but I think ZvT shouldn't be that bad, especially since mutas are such a go-to option in the matchup and I believe they would be extremely great (like, godlike) on this map as well. Just so you know, the triple rock towers, if you attack one, they all take damage, so when one falls, they all fall. It's basically a "death-trap" if you move your army through it without knocking down the rocks and clearing the path first.
As for tanks, yeah I've thought about it a bit. I tried to make a couple of the areas a little less tank friendly, but as you point out, there are still a good chunk of spots that tanks could abuse you in TvZ. Although, come on, I'd love to see some more tank play, so let's create a map that tanks are actually good to use in! Changing that meta yo! You rarely see tank play anymore unless the terran is going pure mech. (which...could be good on this map, although with the low number of bases maybe not?)
Either way, no hate at all! ^_^ I appreciate the comments! I still plan on doing some tweaking to this map before I submit it to TLMC, so I'd love to hear everything you all have to say.
On January 27 2015 07:37 SidianTheBard wrote: Just so you know, the triple rock towers, if you attack one, they all take damage, so when one falls, they all fall. It's basically a "death-trap" if you move your army through it without knocking down the rocks and clearing the path first.
I was wondering why u made the domino reference. Now makes sense!
Changed up the map quite a bit to give zergs a better option for a 3rd. It's much more open in certain areas. Protoss/Terran should still be able to expand easily enough if needed and with widening out a lot of the map I feel it will also help out zerg. Also, got rid of the rower tower dominoes, added some LoSB around the map, filled in some of the dead space, etc etc.
Added Topdown & Angled in OP. Sorry about the quality on those images, my photoshop decided it was going to take a shit on me and I don't feel like messing with it atm, so did what I could.
I actually heavily thought about it since there is a good chunk of dead space in the NW and SE corners. I might even go back and add another base there in the future. I really wanted to play off the whole 10 base, aggressive map though and just felt like adding corner bases would take that away a bit. Either way, we'll see how it plays out a bit and I can always go back and add some in at a later date if needed!
I did some TLMC changes and now yesterday and today I was messing around with this map a little more. Figure I'll post the updates.
New Map Bounds: 130x124 (Now a lot of the border map art can't be seen in game.../cry lol) Added corner bases. Removed Watchtower Made "middle" 3rd bases a little closer to the natural and therefore safer. Increased middle path size.
On August 30 2015 07:25 sTYleZerG-eX wrote: I really like the middle, but 35 sec nat 2 nat I think might be a bit 2 short
One of my early edits made it farther and now the OP is too old I can't edit it. Currently from town hall to town hall the map has a rush distance of...
Main to Main: 58seconds Nat to Nat: 45seconds
The original map, which only had 35 sec nat to nat was too short, so had to lengthen it =)
I love "for cutting throats only" maps! (Pretty much what your space ship success ended up being?) (Are cutthroat map something you realize you specialize in?)
I think this map would actually be pretty good for Lurker builds, burrow roach, etc for Zerg. Mutas could be a little annoying with that little poked-out third.
So it's not hopeless for Zerg, but they definitely can't go LBM on this map without easy widowmine hits from chokes.
The forcefields can pose some problems, which is why I mentioned burrow play.
On September 01 2015 05:36 Avexyli wrote: I think this map would actually be pretty good for Lurker builds, burrow roach, etc for Zerg. Mutas could be a little annoying with that little poked-out third.
So it's not hopeless for Zerg, but they definitely can't go LBM on this map without easy widowmine hits from chokes.
The forcefields can pose some problems, which is why I mentioned burrow play.
Yeah, when I first released this map it was a lot tighter, I opened up quite a ton of the map to make it less FF friendly so I think I did a pretty good job at it. Plus since protoss will most likely grab the 3rd closer to the middle (since it is better for forcefields) it does open them up to flanks from each side & the option for harass from the middle. Could be pretty awesome for LOTV since ravagers should be able to deny mining from the middle and yeah lurkers will definitely help.
On September 08 2015 07:28 fluidrone wrote: So.. ?! You still owe me an interview
Haha, pm me here or hit me up on Skype sometime. Usually I'm only around during the weekends though since my mon-thurs is fairly busy with work.