|
So Daybreak is getting in... That's great. But I have one question:
In the TL Map Contest, Blizzard specifically indicated to the contest organizer that the bases should each have 8 mineral fields and 2 gas to avoid confusion for players at the lower levels. Some of you may remember the small controversy around the change from GSL Tal'Darim Altar which had its third at 6m1g. When it was added to ladder, it became Tal'Darim Altar LE and saw the third changed to 8m2g with the addition of destructible rocks. This was a pretty significant change, one that the map's creator LSPrime had not intended in it's original design (and one that if memory serves, he was pretty chapped about).
If Blizzard continues to follow the protocol that they have in the past, all non-standard resource bases will be changed to 8m 2g. It's pretty fair to say that Daybreak is one of the most exciting and brilliant 2p map designs we've seen yet in competitive SC2, but changing the forward expansion to 8m2g has some pretty significant effects. Now players can start taking that expansion as their 4th, positioning their armies in such a way that makes it very easy to defend everything (centered around the Xel'Naga Tower nearby).
Daybreak isn't an awesome map because of how defensive it is. It's awesome because of how much action it creates. The basetrades that occur because of the rush distance and the rocks in the middle path forcing players to cross the map in opposite directions often missing one another's army entirely. The strategic placement of armies and map control around the high ground pods & expansions at the 12 and 6. The action packed game that when doesn't end in a 2-base timing attack usually leads to an all-out war of attrition as players whittle each other down. All to that last forward base with 6 minerals and one gas.
Please Blizzard. Please don't fix what's not broken. When you add Daybreak, don't change the expansion <3
Signed,
prodiG Mapmaker & Commentator for ESV
Edit: Going to post some of my fairly long-winded responses in the OP as well
Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:57 Ubenn wrote: You are blowing this out of proportion. I would be willing to bet that less than 5% of ladder games go to 4 bases. It won't ruin the map like some of you are claiming. Hell 1/2 the people take the center expo as their 4th anyways because of the much better defensive positioning with the Xel'naga there. I'm not blowing this out of proportion. You're completely missing the point. The 1/2 people who take the center of the expo are using a map feature exactly the way it was designed. The very defensible forward position is offset by the lack of resources. With it the way it is, there's a decision to be made that y ou can craft your playstyle on that map around: Do I take my 4th in the corner, at the forward center position or at the 6/12? You entirely remove that decision (which the entire lategame transition hinges upon in my opinion) when you make the forward expo 6m1g. Beyond that, saying ladder games don't get to 4 bases is completely assinine in my opinion. Just because some ladder games end before that is no reason in any way shape or form to butcher something, especially something that has an incredible amount of creative genius behind it (huge props to winpark). There's also the fact that tournaments tend to eventually default to the ladder version over the tournament version when significant changes like this are made. You don't see tournaments using GSL Tal'Darim Altar (with it's original 6m1g 3rd expansion) anymore, they're ALL using the ladder edition. Same goes for ESV Korhal Compound (with the original natural expansion being much tighter and easier to wall than it currently is). Cloud Kingdom's only changes were the removal of ESV Space Shark (YYYYYYYOOOOOOOOU BAAAAAASSTAAAAAAAAARDS D ![](/mirror/smilies/smile.gif) and the supply depots at the ramp, not the end of the world but still a change that I don't 100% agree with nonetheless. Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:45 Waxangel wrote: btw Gisado was answering questions on twitter, so I asked him about daybreak middle minerals going to 8/2
pretty much said the same thing as you D: Yeah man. I don't know how much clearer I can make it, a change like this would completely ruin the map and turn it into just another random predictable as fuck 2p map, alongside really setting this precedent in stone for all of the future maps. I often see threads with people complaining about how un-creative maps are asking "why?" - here's your answer. If this is going to be yet another restriction placed on mapmakers who ever want to see their maps make it to the ladder (one of the ultimate goals any relatively serious mapmaker has), then once again we're simply throwing that creativity away. As an example of these consequences, MLG strictly refuses to take dives on new maps in their map pool (I've discussed this heavily with them). They will wait until a TON of statistics confirming balance are revealed, or until the map is added to the ladder (these are the two most significant criteria that they choose to follow, with the belief that ladder maps will create the most fair play for all players since they will have more exposure to them than non-ladder maps, therefore potentially broken strategies will be more fleshed out). They may (I have no written confirmation from anyone and it's entirely their choice) choose to use the ladder version of a map over it's intended tournament version. The same can be said for the majority of other tournaments and their organizers. Why bother with the confusion? Just tell everyone to throw up a game on the ladder map and they're good to go. Differences that players may not be aware of between the ladder version and the tournament/original version can upset the players, resulting in a backlash often reflecting poorly on your event and organization. Nobody wants that, it hurts their bottom line more than having the proper map used would have helped.
![4.25 stars based on 20 ratings *](/images/blogs/blackstar.gif) ![4.25 stars based on 20 ratings *](/images/blogs/blackstar.gif) ![4.25 stars based on 20 ratings *](/images/blogs/blackstar.gif) ![4.25 stars based on 20 ratings *](/images/blogs/blackstar.gif)
|
Additional: Add the ESVSpaceShark to this map.
Other than that, I totally agree.
|
On February 29 2012 11:45 Duckvillelol wrote: Additional: Add the ESVSpaceShark to this map.
Other than that, I totally agree. Crux Daybreak isn't an ESV map! Crux can get their own trademark doodad mascot guy!
|
I am thinking that Blizzard is understanding that the great maps are community made and we want to play on the same maps that are used in tournaments, so I don't think they'll change it.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Come on, it's Blizzard. They're going to add at least 2 destructible rocks & change the middle expansion into full ones. It's what they do.
|
I'll be so sad if they change it one can hope.
|
On February 29 2012 11:48 aebriol wrote: I am thinking that Blizzard is understanding that the great maps are community made and we want to play on the same maps that are used in tournaments, so I don't think they'll change it. In the past, Blizzard has been pretty conservative with how they want their ladder maps to work. The problem here is that if they continue to follow suit with what they've been doing in the past, they'll drastically goof Daybreak to the point where it's just simply nowhere near as good of a map as it is right now.
|
United States33072 Posts
I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote: I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
Oh cmon wax - Calm Before the Storm - aka "20 min no rush plzkk" takes that honour!
|
United States33072 Posts
that's why it's GSTL only, I imagine
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote: I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^; I think the 3-base turtle stage often comes after some 2-base timings where the players try to secure an advantage for the later game (see this all the time in the Korean Weekly). After that it's not a map that's about running balls of units into each other and seeing who wins, it's about making sure your army is always in the right place at the right time. The only other map that's regularly used that I can confidently say does this extremely well without making it very easy is Cloud Kingdom
|
Yeah, if they're gonna add it to ladder and want 8m2g then they should just remove the middle bases..
|
At the end of the day, Tal'Darim changed in a way that was still acceptable by the addition of the rocks/changing the base. However, this will break Daybreak because that expo is purely a positional one. It is not meant to be used as money, more as putting your foot down, gaining control of the central/other expansions. With the advent of PFs, cannons, creep and spines, that is what this base is there for. Not for money, for other advantages.
|
On February 29 2012 11:59 DYEAlabaster wrote: At the end of the day, Tal'Darim changed in a way that was still acceptable by the addition of the rocks/changing the base. However, this will break Daybreak because that expo is purely a positional one. It is not meant to be used as money, more as putting your foot down, gaining control of the central/other expansions. With the advent of PFs, cannons, creep and spines, that is what this base is there for. Not for money, for other advantages. Exactly. Adding rocks on the Daybreak expansion and making it 8m2g is not an appropriate change in the slightest, nor is just changing it to 8m2g.
If Blizzard was to make a change to the map and take the stance of "We will never have maps on ladder that don't have 8m 2g on every blue expansion" then even removing the expansion entirely takes away from what is already a brilliant design, although that choice would be better than an 8m2g imo.
At the end of the day, if Blizzard adds it I really hope they just leave it exactly the way it is.
|
I didn't know ladder games went up to 4 bases ^_^
But yeah, Daybreak is a great map. I'm not sure what will happen with 8m2g but I will take ESV's word for it. I do like their justification but I don't buy it. It's nice making the game easier to understand, but then why do you put destructible rocks and smoke screens and double cliffs vs single cliffs? IMHO those take more getting used to than a 6m base.
|
Signed.
Please don't ruin a good thing Blizzard.
|
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote: I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
I don't think Daybreak is that great either but this is about the ladder map pool not a tournament map pool. I don't think games on Daybreak are all that exciting to watch but it must be a fun map to play on if so many people like it.
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote: I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
I feel the same way as this. I love long, epic, macro games. But, I don't like it when it's clear 3 minutes in that there won't be any aggression of note for the next 8. Daybreak is the single biggest reason I end up skimming through games to get to my favorite players. It just kills my patience.
That being said, I don't think I'll mind playing it as much as watching it. At least its a good excuse to really focus on my macro
|
I feel like Daybreak is too hard to attack on actually. If you just protect the center of the map you can insure yourself against pretty much any type of harassment almost with stationary defenses around your main and expansions due to no space behind mains at all to fly in mutas or drops. If they fixed that I would be much happier, because as it stands it's really not leaving much chance to players that like to play with multipronged attacks, and my own games on it often end up in massive turteling. I'd also say it's only fair if they change the center expansion to 8m 2g. I feel like it favors Zerg too much the way it is now seeing as how it's really easy for a Zerg to defend the a bit further out expansion with very little creep to connect it, while it can be quite a bit harder for T or P with more stationary armies.
|
|
|
|