Okay, so I had a discussion with someone about the Red Bull TLMC results, he or she asked me if what maps I'd like to see as finalist. I argued pathfinder., the reason it didn't make it was apparently the power of blink stalkers.
At this point I must admit confusion. TLMC's set goals where to 'shake up the metagame', how on earth are you going to alter the metagame by not making certain strategies more powerful? Does anyone actually think that blink stalkers would become so powerful that they'd become 'unstoppable'? If they'd be unstoppable then people would've gone nothing but blink stalkers in the old day of metalopolis or lost temple. No, they will become more powerful and the other races will be forced to adapt and open up in ways specifically designed to deal with blink stalkers. Get some marauders early, get earlier lingspeed. The reason we use the current openers is because they can deal with everything thrown at us currently, the very definition of 'shaking up the metagame' is creating situations where the current openers are no longer viable.
Back in the HotS beta when reapers were absolutely ridiculous. It was standard in ZvT to open 14gas/14pool for a while to deal with it. No, you couldn't deal with it from a hatch first, so then don't go hatch first any more? The metagame was indeed shaken up quite a bit. But it rippled further, because Z had early speed, the potential of a quick baneling all in loomed, suddenly Terran had to make consenssions deal with that threat so you'd suddenly see scans from paranoid terrans to see if you actually had a natural, extra bunkers went down. They couldn't see any more if a natural went down because early speedlings denied it or it could be cancelled. It sort of balanced each other out again.
Was the balancing out perfect? No, I'd say that such a situation favours T slightly more than Z. Does it matter when we already have maps which go 55 or even 58% in certain matchups in the pool? No, not at all, finals are played over bo7's, 55% is completely acceptable as long as the next map swings in a different direction.
Consider cross-only Antiga Shipyard, if we look at winrates, it is one of the most balanced maps ever. People said 'Z can't get a fourth easy vs T' on that map, and that's true. So, Zerg dealt with it, they invented 2-2 muta/ling/bane timing attacks to deal substantial damage before that point so they didn't need a fourth or conversely could secure it because Terran was battered. This strategy was an ingenious solution because the layout of the main/natural/third allowed for this very well, the strategy was quite powerful. It would kill Terrans if they played normally, so Terrans addapted in anticipation of this timing and got overtly defensive, in return the overly defensive stance allowed Z to secure a fourth. Now, this balancing action only worked insofar that the main/nat/third setup made this attack so powerful. This wasn't a design of the map specifically towards this, but this was no accident either. I am fully confident that if the map did not allow this specific timing to work so well, Zergs would have found another timing that did work. We're talking about the strategic genius of Korean teamhouses here. If a map is made in such a way that if you play like you normally do you won't make it, they will find a way to throw a wrench into it.
Icarus, one of the last great attempts to shake up the metagame has very few games on it, but against all expectations for how little games on it it has it's actualyl Zerg favoured in ZvT contrary to expectations, if you'd play standard on Icarus in ZvT you'd die, but they addapted, they did not play standard, they discovered how potent roach-based backstabbing play was on that map and they made it work. It's too bad the map went out of circulation before we could see if Terrans maybe could formulate a counter-response to this play. People based their expectations of the map on the reasoning 'Gee, what would happen if Z would play like they normally would on this map against Terran?' and concluded that Z would have a tough time. Well, Z didn't play like they normally would, they adapted to the map and invented a wholly new playstyle. Korean teamhouses can and will adapt.
People should in my opinion also really stop trying to balance a map for all 6 matchups and just use a better veto system in tournaments. If you make a map balanced for all 6 matchups it will be dull in all 6 matchups. I really don't get the 'map pool of 7 with no vetoes' system. Rather, make it a map pool of 11 and give everyone 3 vetos in a Bo5. There might be a map in there which is imbalanced in ZvP but makes excellent TvZ and TvP games. Every protoss will just veto it versus Zerg but it'll keep being used in the other matchups. Small map pools are a disaster in my opinion. If one of them is imbalanced that colours the entire tournament. In BW the OSL would have a map pool of 4 typically. Sometimes one of those was brutally imbalanced, then you're in tough luck. Map pools should rather be larger and players should be allowed more vetos.
Finally, I'm constantly talking about 'standard' and 'deviating from the standard', but I'm not looking for a couple of maps in a map pool being different adn the rest 'standard'. I'm looking for there to no longer be a standard. Every map could have a different natural design for all I care. Let's for sake of argument consider GSL 5's map pool:
Every single one of these maps was different, and yes, some were pretty imbalanced but you can veto them in matches that they are? Crossfire was a nightmare in PvZ but delivered quite nice ZvT's so why not just veto it there. Different strategies were used on all these maps which is a good thnig in my opinion.
People often talk about BW and how 'each unit felt more powerful', and boy it did. There was only one drawback to this idea, it felt more powerful through the entire game, every map. Which meant you were using the same units every time because they were so powerful compared to the other units. You can achieve this same idea with maps, except then it's more varied. So what if blink stalkers feel so ungodly powerful on Pathfinder. There are maps where they don't.
If a map is good for Protoss, it will attract more negative attention. People are put off by watching Protoss win tournaments, it just doesn't seem to sit well with the community for some reason.
I agree with you on maps, I think there should be maps where one thing is powerful, but expected, and other maps where it's less powerful, but less expected. I really think normally this is allowed in tournaments unless it's a Protoss strategy, and even then it's sometimes left in.
You pretty much dictated my thoughts on the map making community as a whole. I don't make maps, I just play the game, but I frequent the map making forum because I look forward to seeing what people make. What I don't look forward to is the comments. They're usually fucking retched. I was completely baffled at the amount of putrid shit everyone on that forum was giving Alterzim when it was announced. Jesus fucking christ, people just spout of "This is what will happen", "X is overpowered", "Y will never win". It's infuriating! You know what I did when the map was announced? I got exciting. Fuck yes, an enormous map. I proceeded to go play customs on that map, and it was different than the other maps in the map pool. I played a ZvT on that map, and I absolutely steam rolled a standard parade push. Why? Because it was a quarter fucking mile from his main to my third, and he couldn't reinforce in the same way he could on say, Gwangalli Beach.
I look at the map makers forum, and what I see are new map makers trying to innovate, old map makers shitting on them, and then new map makers adopting the idea that everything has to be standardized. I'm of the opinion that no map is balanced, or unbalanced. The core races are the same way. They aren't balanced around fucking anything. Blizzard gave us tools, and how we use those tools determine if we win or not. If it's a ZvP on pathfinder, and blinking into the main is powerful, than so fucking be it. Zerg has a fucking plethora of options to deal with that sort of play, that's the entire point of a god damn RTS.
That also goes for just about every balance patch Blizzard has ever released. Stop trying to fucking make the game balanced, we have the tools to make it balanced, patching just prevents people from innovating, and causes the metagame to dry out.
Imbalanced or weird maps were better for Proleague in the BW days since progamers would spend a week or more practicing a single matchup on a single map and could dedicate a lot of time and focus to figuring out good strategies for it. This is one reason I liked the SC2 Proleague maps like arkanoid and Caldeum. But most maps nowadays are either ladder maps, by which any imbalances can be ignored just by vetoing it, or obscure maps used in random tournaments, like this one, which considering how little one tournament means, players generally don't focus on preparing strategies for them (though for Red Bull they might).
Also BW wasn't perfect, occasionally maps would be so skewed for certain races they became a mirror map for a while then phased out. Battle Royale comes to mind.
@ littlesheep. Protoss gets a lot of hate because they have a large number of aggressive builds that are all really difficult to hold and Terran/zerg scouting tools are not good enough to reliably detect exactly what's going during such games unless the Protoss is incompetant or the T/Z gets lucky somehow. So you end up having to make really crazy judgement calls with no information and doing as such often feels like guessing. And random chance is the enemy of the purity of skill, so FUCK PROTOSS RAWRAGH.)
I very much agree. The strife for perfect balance has hindered the development strategic variety by removing obstacles that would otherwise require a new approach. So, as a viewer, I really wish the map pool was more diverse. And I miss Xelnaga Caverns.
I couldn't disagree more. It's not like the shape of a football field changes every 3 months, besides I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy, especially when I know for sure which all-in I'm going to see before the game even starts...
I agree with your point about imbalances, but those imbalances needs to be equalized. Say you have a map that is strong for blinkstalkers.. Then it should make up for it, by not having chokes protoss can abuse, and also have easy drop spots
The way you describe to implement imbalances, is just giving one race supremacy on certain map, which is fcked up and boring to watch and play. ------------------------
Also, some of your examples are wrong
1: "Back in the HotS beta when reapers were absolutely ridiculous. It was standard in ZvT to open 14gas/14pool for a while to deal with it. No, you couldn't deal with it from a hatch first, so then don't go hatch first any more?" This one is used wrong. You forgot to ad the fact, that terran dominated TvZ at that point, and where blatantly superior. Forcing zerg economically behind vs a terran, when zergs strenght is mass numbers, will always result in terran winning
2: "So, Zerg dealt with it, they invented 2-2 muta/ling/bane timing attacks to deal substantial damage before that point so they didn't need a fourth or conversely could secure it because Terran was battered. This strategy was an ingenious solution because the layout of the main/natural/third allowed for this very well, the strategy was quite powerful."
BULLSHIT! DRG popularized the 2-2 ling bling muta all in back in WoL on Cloud Kingdom, which was meant to deal with bombers 2-2-1 push in the middle of the map(right above zergs 4rth)
3 "Korean teamhouses can and will adapt."
[bAgain, bullshit. All prohouses will adapt to an extend, but the ladder is where they get the rough drafts for new strategies The reason for this, is that unlike progamers, normal players who are a gm level, have no obligations toward the game, and therefor have alot more room for datamining builds. [/b]
On November 04 2013 23:22 Zax19 wrote: I couldn't disagree more. It's not like the shape of a football field changes every 3 months, besides I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy, especially when I know for sure which all-in I'm going to see before the game even starts...
Football isn't a strategy game, it's a physical game.
and before you jump to chess, the same criticism is in fact very much alive in chess. Chess is currently dying, it is entering a process right now that was feared for the last 200 years, the final stage of chess called 'draw death', where the game is so figured out that the majority of professional chess matches ends in a draw. A recent world championship of chess in fact where 10 draws and 2 games being a victory. Arguably the most talented chess player of the modern time argued before his death that chess piece starting positions should in fact be randomized, and he's not alone in this.
"I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy"
Before the mothership core, map design forced you to FFE vs Z, any amount of pressure expand was useless because it could be fend of with a single spine. You would before that time see super interesting 3stalker pressure builds vs Zerg on maps with open naturals but those were a thing of the past at the end of WoL. Every TvP was 1 rax FE because the map forced it.
Make no mistake that the current 'standard openers' are forced by the maps just as hard.
Agreed. Both perfect balance on maps and perfect balance throughout ladders is a destructive goal.
In BW a lot of weird maps where used and well, weird maps produce weird strategies.. and that's the beauty of it. I generally hate watching TvZ and lately even TvP because the strategies are so monotone... this would help tremendously. We cannot expect miracles from LoV, it's time to make diversity through maps.
I don't really get you. You complain about all the unique maps in TLMC just badmouthing them constantly and then you bring up Antiga and Icarus and say how much they changed the meta game. I honestly shouldn't reply here because you have a history of arguing just to argue and will usually pull up random facts to try to prove yourself correct but hey, why not.
First off, you bring up Antiga and say look at the win rates and then say it's unique and interesting because the 4th is "risky". As someone else already pointed out, they didn't invented 2-2 MLB because of this map, it was just a style of play that was already figured out that works well on 3 base. You praise zerg win rates saying that even though they bitched about the map they still had a higher win %. Do you realize this was also the end of WoL? Do you realize this was also when, if a zerg could get Brood Lord Infestor they could for the most part win the majority of the time? The term "patch zerg", you should be familiar with. Well it's also about the same time that Antiga went Cross only? Do you honestly believe if Infestor/Brood lord wasn't so strong that zerg would have still done well on that map?
But let's not be done with Antiga just yet, since you seem to have a hard on for that map. Let's look at the current TLMC winners. There are no maps that are even somewhat similar to each other (closest would probably be Blitz & Hab Station) yet even though some of them have backdoors, safer/harder nats, safer/harder 3rds, safer/harder 4ths, you're first thought instead of let's see how these play out, you complain about them instantly saying they don't change the meta game at all. So how come, all of a sudden, you're praising Antiga Shipyard for having a Unique 3 base layout with a difficult 4th, yet given time, turned out to be a good map according to you.
I'll go more in depth on Hab station since it's my own map. You have an option of 3rds, one more in the open, one a gold. It's not your basic easy main/nat/third setup. Well now what, do you take a quick 3rd and move your units out to the ramps toward the middle so you can possibly defend it better through those chokes? Do you take the gold, which has a double wide ramp yet it very vulnerable to air harass? Do you sit on 2 base longer and get a bigger army? Do you all-in because the 3rd is too difficult? Maybe the meta will change because there is so much more to think on this map. Instead, we get you bitching about all the results, saying none of them change up the meta.
Next up you talk about Icarus and say how much it changed up the meta. Gee, a map with a double wide ramp into your main, a back door ramp, a giant 12 block wide rock blocking that back door. No possible way to get a 3rd as protoss or terran. AND you're saying zerg should be the one having troubles? You're joking right? You say zergs suddenly started doing roach play? I guess you forgot about 7RR that was already quite popular. Or I guess you forgot how strong Stephano made roaches look during his Roach Max.
To me, it's crazy that you make a blog post saying how Antiga turned out awesome because after thousands of games it turned out balanced even though people bitch when it first came out. You also say you wish Icarus got more play because zergs went roaches early game and that was meta changing bro! Yet, you immediately bitch and complain about all the maps that are in TLMC because they won't "change up the meta" How do you know they won't? We have mirrored maps that we never see in competitive play (Klontas was the most recent then....scrap station?), we have maps with inbase naturals but has backdoors. We have maps with lava taking out the center. We have maps that make it impossible to scout early game. We have maps with crazy middle bases. So please, please tell me how you can know that these maps all suck and won't change the meta at all.
Yeah if every match was a boX with veto's then it wouldn't matter to have some trashy maps, but if players' livelihood depends for a very large part whether or not they get a favorable draw it's obviously fucking stupid.
On November 04 2013 23:22 Zax19 wrote: I couldn't disagree more. It's not like the shape of a football field changes every 3 months, besides I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy, especially when I know for sure which all-in I'm going to see before the game even starts...
Football isn't a strategy game, it's a physical game.
and before you jump to chess, the same criticism is in fact very much alive in chess. Chess is currently dying, it is entering a process right now that was feared for the last 200 years, the final stage of chess called 'draw death', where the game is so figured out that the majority of professional chess matches ends in a draw. A recent world championship of chess in fact where 10 draws and 2 games being a victory. Arguably the most talented chess player of the modern time argued before his death that chess piece starting positions should in fact be randomized, and he's not alone in this.
"I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy"
Before the mothership core, map design forced you to FFE vs Z, any amount of pressure expand was useless because it could be fend of with a single spine. You would before that time see super interesting 3stalker pressure builds vs Zerg on maps with open naturals but those were a thing of the past at the end of WoL. Every TvP was 1 rax FE because the map forced it.
Make no mistake that the current 'standard openers' are forced by the maps just as hard.
As I said, I couldn't disagree more. I've read your posts in the mapmaking forum section a long time ago and your ideas are something I never really agreed with. I didn't come here to argue but I saw this on reddit so I'm just sharing my point of view.
On November 05 2013 01:26 SidianTheBard wrote: I don't really get you. You complain about all the unique maps in TLMC just badmouthing them constantly and then you bring up Antiga and Icarus and say how much they changed the meta game. I honestly shouldn't reply here because you have a history of arguing just to argue and will usually pull up random facts to try to prove yourself correct but hey, why not.
First off, you bring up Antiga and say look at the win rates and then say it's unique and interesting because the 4th is "risky". As someone else already pointed out, they didn't invented 2-2 MLB because of this map, it was just a style of play that was already figured out that works well on 3 base. You praise zerg win rates saying that even though they bitched about the map they still had a higher win %. Do you realize this was also the end of WoL? Do you realize this was also when, if a zerg could get Brood Lord Infestor they could for the most part win the majority of the time? The term "patch zerg", you should be familiar with. Well it's also about the same time that Antiga went Cross only? Do you honestly believe if Infestor/Brood lord wasn't so strong that zerg would have still done well on that map?
Where have I ever said Antiga was unique? It's a fairly standard map. I'm using it as an example of how races are capable of adapting to something which prima facie seems imbalanced because people test balance relative to the current metagame rather than as something that can alter the metagame. I never called Antiga unique and I never will. I did call Icarus unique.
Antiga was also in the map pool long before the end of WoL. Antiga debuted when July was still in the GSL I recall.
But let's not be done with Antiga just yet, since you seem to have a hard on for that map.
I do, I consider it one of the best maps ever in terms of sheer excitement of gameplay.
Let's look at the current TLMC winners. There are no maps that are even somewhat similar to each other (closest would probably be Blitz & Hab Station) yet even though some of them have backdoors, safer/harder nats, safer/harder 3rds, safer/harder 4ths, you're first thought instead of let's see how these play out, you complain about them instantly saying they don't change the meta game at all. So how come, all of a sudden, you're praising Antiga Shipyard for having a Unique 3 base layout with a difficult 4th, yet given time, turned out to be a good map according to you.
I have never called Antiga unique. I have said this about Antiga:
- I think it's a good map - It's an example of how imbalance can be overcome by altering playstyle
I have never called Antiga unique, it's a fairly standard and straightforward map concept that just works well for me.
I'll go more in depth on Hab station since it's my own map. You have an option of 3rds, one more in the open, one a gold. It's not your basic easy main/nat/third setup.
You have a natural and a main with 8m2g each, a single ramp to the natural and a single choke leading to the outside of the natural which is 2-4 forcefields wide like every other map. It's been done before a thousand times and it's getting boring.
Icarus is unique because it challenges this standard. The natural has a different resource layout, there is a 2 width ramp into the main, the natural is inbase and has rocks leading to it. That's already a significant alteration.
No possible way to get a 3rd as protoss or terran.
You talk indefinite bullshit here, I remember many games where P or T got a third on Icarus. What you say here is flat out not true and discredits you as a mapper.
AND you're saying zerg should be the one having troubles?
Yes, that is what people originally said when the map came out.
You're joking right? You say zergs suddenly started doing roach play? I guess you forgot about 7RR that was already quite popular.
7RR was extinct during Icarus. Even on Icarus.
Or I guess you forgot how strong Stephano made roaches look during his Roach Max.
That is a ZvP strat, nota ZvT strat, roaches have always been mainstay in ZvP but have always been a rarity in ZvT as a midgame composition outside some roach/bane all ins. I'm talking ZvT.
To me, it's crazy that you make a blog post saying how Antiga turned out awesome because after thousands of games it turned out balanced even though people bitch when it first came out. You also say you wish Icarus got more play because zergs went roaches early game and that was meta changing bro! Yet, you immediately bitch and complain about all the maps that are in TLMC because they won't "change up the meta" How do you know they won't? We have mirrored maps that we never see in competitive play (Klontas was the most recent then....scrap station?), we have maps with inbase naturals but has backdoors. We have maps with lava taking out the center. We have maps that make it impossible to scout early game. We have maps with crazy middle bases. So please, please tell me how you can know that these maps all suck and won't change the meta at all.
Like I said before, the Lava map was a true innovation. Apart from that I am not impressed with the originality of the maps in the TLMC finalists and I am not alone. The entire thread on reddit was filled with dissapointment down to outright ire that every map again was the same. Every standard strategy which you can do now, from FFE, to 1 rax FE, to reaper expand, to hatch first will work on any of those maps. Because they are designed to still allow them to work. No mapmaker had the balls to say 'No, you cannot go hach first in ZvT on this map, find something else to do. And that is what I like to see, just that one map in the pool which has such a ridiculously abusive bunker spot to spot purely to stop zergs from going hatch first and to see how they deal with it.
Ending the map requirement of balance for all 6 matchups is essential but the slight change I would make on the veto system is note certain maps as No Protoss/Terran/Zerg and they are automatically out for those matchups so no need to veto.
On November 05 2013 02:08 dvorakftw wrote: Ending the map requirement of balance for all 6 matchups is essential but the slight change I would make on the veto system is note certain maps as No Protoss/Terran/Zerg and they are automatically out for those matchups so no need to veto.
Well, the cool part would be if a Protoss suddenly makes an audacious move and picks a map that is vetoed by every protoss in say PvT because he knows his opponent did not practice that map most likely and he has prepared a specific strat to overcome that map. It adds a lot of cool mind games.
I'll just ignore the first half of your reply since it's typical Siskos arguing where you find 1 "Unique" thing in my whole post and keep drilling into it.
On November 05 2013 02:02 SiskosGoatee wrote: You talk indefinite bullshit here, I remember many games where P or T got a third on Icarus. What you say here is flat out not true and discredits you as a mapper.
While I remember many games where P or T couldn't secure a third on Icarus. Look, I'm using your form of arguing! I win.
That is a ZvP strat, nota ZvT strat, roaches have always been mainstay in ZvP but have always been a rarity in ZvT as a midgame composition outside some roach/bane all ins. I'm talking ZvT.
Zergs were getting early roaches to stop hellion play waaaay before Icarus came out. Even if they didn't get roaches out they would always get a roach warren for the possibility.
Like I said before, the Lava map was a true innovation. Apart from that I am not impressed with the originality of the maps in the TLMC finalists and I am not alone. The entire thread on reddit was filled with dissapointment down to outright ire that every map again was the same. Every standard strategy which you can do now, from FFE, to 1 rax FE, to reaper expand, to hatch first will work on any of those maps. Because they are designed to still allow them to work. No mapmaker had the balls to say 'No, you cannot go hach first in ZvT on this map, find something else to do. And that is what I like to see, just that one map in the pool which has such a ridiculously abusive bunker spot to spot purely to stop zergs from going hatch first and to see how they deal with it.
Because if zerg cannot go hatch first they lose? I don't care what you say, a zerg on 1 base will lose the majority of the time to a protoss or terran on 1 base. Zerglings, Banelings & Roaches one 1 base will never beat Marines or stalker/sentry on 1 base. The only way a zerg wins on 1 base is if the terran or protoss gets too greedy and does nexus/cc first and skips on units. But if you're playing on a map where you can shut down the natural easily, then do that, get units and gg zerg won't win. That's just race design. It's the same reason why any map with a somewhat hard to hold 3rd, you see Protoss 2 base all-in. Hell, even with maps that have easy to hold 3rds you still see protoss 2 base all-in? Why? Because it's one of their strongest points in the game.
On November 05 2013 02:34 SidianTheBard wrote: I'll just ignore the first half of your reply since it's typical Siskos arguing where you find 1 "Unique" thing in my whole post and keep drilling into it.
I just quote everything you say and reply ot everything.
You talk indefinite bullshit here, I remember many games where P or T got a third on Icarus. What you say here is flat out not true and discredits you as a mapper.
While I remember many games where P or T couldn't secure a third on Icarus. Look, I'm using your form of arguing! I win.
...wtf?
You say it is 'impossible' to secure a third, do you think that many games where P or T can't secure a third proves that?
If I say it is 'impossible' that a human being grows beyond 2 metres tall, do I prove my thesis by 'Yeah, you may show me many human beings that are taller than 2 metres, but I also know many that aren't!'
Do you know the meaning of the word 'impossible'? Theoretically one need only present a single counter example to dispute a claim of impossibility. Now, I can obviously read between the lines and understand you mean 'nigh on impossible', but it's not even that. You saw thirds being secured about 2/5 of the games played on the map by T/P. That doesn't come in the vicinity of 'impossible'.
Zergs were getting early roaches to stop hellion play waaaay before Icarus came out. Even if they didn't get roaches out they would always get a roach warren for the possibility
, yes, they would, and that's entirely different from what happened on Icarus where they used roaches as essentiallyt heir entire midgame army. Maxing on almost pure roach against bio.
Because if zerg cannot go hatch first they lose?
Nullshit, if this is what you base your maps on then you seriously need to re-evaluate your theory., It has long been shown that 15pool is the most economic opener Z can do. The only advantage Hatch first offers above 15 pool is earlier creep. 15 pool gives you more drones and more larvae. It is patent and absolute bullshit that Z needs hatch first vs T to win at all.
You'd also be surprised at how close 10pool comes to hatch first in terms of income. I actually saturate 2 bases on 16 drones per mineral line and 3 in gas with 10pool only 10 seconds later than with hatch first, I once tested it.
But hey, it's long known that this entire game's theory is based on myths which have long been disproven. Hell, Korean Zergs even still do the extractor trick some times even though it's proven that 9 overlord is superior in every single way.
I don't care what you say, a zerg on 1 base will lose the majority of the time to a protoss or terran on 1 base.
Because the only way to get a second base is with a hatch first?
Like I said in the op, in the beta the standard meta in ZvT for a while was in fact 14g14p, and you could win just fine. This was when reapers were still so ridiculous that every TvT was reaper and I don't think you could beat 8 rax proxy reaper in TvT without your own reapers or blind marauders but 14g14p definitely held up to Terran in that time at the beta.
Speaking for map imbalances that I specifically look for in maps (and probably other judges as well) it's pretty much only Blink Stalkers and cannon rushes. Cannon rushes are obvious, don't place minerals in dumb locations and this isn't even up for debate. For blink stalkers, the only reason this is the one strategy that we particularly pay attention to is because it's been proven time and time again that Blink Stalkers are exceptionally potent anytime the main is exposed to blink.
Normally we're pretty forgiving with this. If there is only some area from which blink stalkers can come in we can normally deal with that (because bunkers/defence can be prepared in that location - example: see Electric Circuit from TLMC2) but if there are two distinct places where blink stalkers can attack that isn't difficult for them to get to, then we have a problem. Your example of path finder has exactly this problem (the whole main is virtually vulnerable to blink). That doesn't make for particularly good games and arguably does more harm to the legitimacy of foreign mapping in the long term than any positive developments to the metagame.
Aside from blink stalkers we're generally pretty accepting of players finding a way to counter strategies -- particularly with HotS which didn't see as radical of a map pool as WoL did. Low ground mains is probably the only iffy area due to PvP, but a well executed low ground main map would still have us intrigued. Things like rising lava, FF blocks, extreme contrast between chokes and wide spaces, variations in mineral/gas count, use of gold minerals, small main/large nat, reverse islands, semi islands, full islands, unconventional naturals (think scrap station), short air distances, mineral back doors, rocked back doors, reverse bases (think Outsider/Koprulu), extra thin main ramps etc. are all interesting features which I'd be enthusiastic to see on a map. Hell, I'd encourage mappers to look into these ideas and hammer out some concepts and send them to me or someone for feedback -- I'm always happy to do that. These ideas invariably score better than similar quality standard maps as they catch our eye as they are memorable.
fantastic write up. You put my thoughts on "paper" and it was very well done. I feel like you covered most of the arguments and I completely agree with your ideas. Great work!
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FpLeTf1.gif)
