@Jukado: I already asked lemmata to give me an abstract, Seems like its basically points out that diagonal minerals mine slower (which is only half correct: diagonal front row minerals may be faster or slower than straight-line back row ones, depending on the could-as-well-be-random gods of SC pathfinding) and proceeds with some additional theses that don't seem to have much rational behind them, namely:
make minerals that are farther away lower yield, so they can all be mined out simultaneously (I don't really see the rational, other than maybe making redistribution of workers between expansions less of an issue for players, but that's still completely ignoring the fact that mining rate depends a lot on worker saturation; or maybe that is supposed to be the point: That mineral fields in the middle of a mineral line attract more workers and therefor tend to mine out quicker at medium saturations)
make naturals so they mine out slower...
... and thirds so they mine faster (even though differences you can induce just by moving one mineral field or two further away from the resource depot location are minimal, not more thatn 5%, maybe 10% if you are actually willing to accept some serious worker pathfinding bugs, and that is only at single saturation, at higher saturation all that can be done is spread out minerals really far so migration gets slowed down a lot [think centre exapansion on Andromeda, for example])
tldr: This seems to be the same type of very basic research that has already been done by others over a decade ago and it's barely scratching the surface or offering any good tips on how to actually balance resource gathering rates.
On May 17 2017 02:59 GGzerG wrote: Awesome, I hope to see some Foreigner maps in there!
So far Kiseyras (by Crystaldrag) and Uzi Sara (me) are in there, they've both gotten some good response, I feel. Now it is freakling's turn for his maps to be exposed to the Korean world!
It's cool I'm concerned terran might have too easy of a time mech slowpushing to take 4-5 bases?
Feel like it could be difficult for zerg to defend naturals with the extra ramp now that i think about it, but sunkens should be pretty strong with the high ground advantage
That's why there is the neutral creep colony on the low ground (same idea as Colosseum). There is space for quite a lot of sunkens there. Additionally, as you already suggested, if a Zerg really want to turtle, getting a macro hatch (third hatch in ZvT) in the main on the cliff above the natural choke and then getting two sunkens on the cliff and two more on the cliff in the natural is really hard to break for any opponent.
@Freakling/Lemmata thanks. Are these 2 posts written by an ASL representative who is trying to give guidelines or an unaffiliated mapper trying to give tips?
On May 21 2017 18:01 Freakling wrote: @Jukado: I already asked lemmata to give me an abstract, Seems like its basically points out that diagonal minerals mine slower (which is only half correct: diagonal front row minerals may be faster or slower than straight-line back row ones, depending on the could-as-well-be-random gods of SC pathfinding) and proceeds with some additional theses that don't seem to have much rational behind them, namely:
make minerals that are farther away lower yield, so they can all be mined out simultaneously (I don't really see the rational, other than maybe making redistribution of workers between expansions less of an issue for players, but that's still completely ignoring the fact that mining rate depends a lot on worker saturation; or maybe that is supposed to be the point: That mineral fields in the middle of a mineral line attract more workers and therefor tend to mine out quicker at medium saturations)
make naturals so they mine out slower...
... and thirds so they mine faster (even though differences you can induce just by moving one mineral field or two further away from the resource depot location are minimal, not more thatn 5%, maybe 10% if you are actually willing to accept some serious worker pathfinding bugs, and that is only at single saturation, at higher saturation all that can be done is spread out minerals really far so migration gets slowed down a lot [think centre exapansion on Andromeda, for example])
tldr: This seems to be the same type of very basic research that has already been done by others over a decade ago and it's barely scratching the surface or offering any good tips on how to actually balance resource gathering rates.
On May 17 2017 02:59 GGzerG wrote: Awesome, I hope to see some Foreigner maps in there!
So far Kiseyras (by Crystaldrag) and Uzi Sara (me) are in there, they've both gotten some good response, I feel. Now it is freakling's turn for his maps to be exposed to the Korean world!
It's cool I'm concerned terran might have too easy of a time mech slowpushing to take 4-5 bases?
Feel like it could be difficult for zerg to defend naturals with the extra ramp now that i think about it, but sunkens should be pretty strong with the high ground advantage
That's why there is the neutral creep colony on the low ground (same idea as Colosseum). There is space for quite a lot of sunkens there. Additionally, as you already suggested, if a Zerg really want to turtle, getting a macro hatch (third hatch in ZvT) in the main on the cliff above the natural choke and then getting two sunkens on the cliff and two more on the cliff in the natural is really hard to break for any opponent.
Is there enough room for Ultras and stuff to get out if you drop the 3rd hatch infront of the ramp?
The ramps leave a 4-gap on the left and right spawns and a 6-gap at the top spawn, a Hatchery only takes 4x3 tiles and an Ultra is about 1x1 tiles big, so yes there would be enough room. I doubt it would make for a good setup though...
I wonder if on Uzi Sara it would be a commonly used strategy in ZvP to wall sim city at that low ground entrance. Wonder if it is too wide for that (am at work so can't check).
On May 22 2017 05:07 Freakling wrote: What do you mean? On the low ground? Like so:
The ramps leave a 4-gap on the left and right spawns and a 6-gap at the top spawn, a Hatchery only takes 4x3 tiles and an Ultra is about 1x1 tiles big, so yes there would be enough room. I doubt it would make for a good setup though...
Seems like a decent sim city for ZvP, and i dunno i was thinking ZvT it would work too since you need the 3rd hat anyway but i dunno.
On May 22 2017 05:07 Freakling wrote: What do you mean? On the low ground? Like so:
The ramps leave a 4-gap on the left and right spawns and a 6-gap at the top spawn, a Hatchery only takes 4x3 tiles and an Ultra is about 1x1 tiles big, so yes there would be enough room. I doubt it would make for a good setup though...
Seems like a decent sim city for ZvP, and i dunno i was thinking ZvT it would work too since you need the 3rd hat anyway but i dunno.
My biggest concern with my map is that I hope it doesn't force 3 hatch builds (or punish 2 hatch strategies) for this reason so that's why I added the neutral creep. It is not good for balance to restrict one race's options, especially if it doesn't do the same to the other races. Anyways, the map is experimental for this reason.
Another concern I had is PvZ in hydra bust situations. Some of these scenarios are just difficult to assess unless play testing is done (or just playing any games on it). Maybe the map is balanced, maybe it isn't. I just wanted to try something new [and make it look good, too].
Hydra busts are strong if either rushing distances are very short (they are pretty normal for a 3 player map, which is already slightly over average) or there is a lot of area in front of the nat for Hydras to form a concave (there isn't). Enough cannon space should also be no problem, as not only is there plenty on the low ground but more can be build on the cliffs in the main and natural, which makes the choke extremely hard to break with anything (even if the low ground falls, the nat is still safe on the high ground, with some Zealots blocking the ramp and hopefully some psi storms on the way to wipe out the Hydras clumping up in the tight low ground passage – Hydra busting an even halfway prepared Protoss could easily be an absolute nightmare for the Zerg here. The purpose of a Hydra bust is to kill a Proross' natural, after all. Hard to do when it's safe up a ramp.
The worker spawn is some haxxx, of course. I uploaded a picture on afreeca to show how it is done... There is also a whole thread by CrystalDrag here on TL, discussing all the quirks in detail.
I just updated it to facilitate some more Protoss wallins for 7/11 o'clock... Though Larva was terrible at finding the decent ones which were already there...
On July 10 2017 19:47 Freakling wrote: Why don't they add all 3, though?
I don't think the players like having to learn a bunch of new maps. Maybe between this and SSL Classic we'll get two new maps next season, though--Frogstar World B still has a chance!
Also, congrats to JungleTerrain. Hope Uzi Sara wins the runoff.
Now JD tested these 3 maps in his stream. "I think Salamander is not good for zerg. I dont like this map" "And, Crossing field is worst for zerg. ZvP will be unbalnced in this map" "Thank you for Uzi sara mapmaker. Creep colony is so sensitive, and this map is like Demian. Protoss is not good in this map. Z>P, Z<T, I think"
uzi sara does look damn good eh^^ hard for p says JD? modify?? if Z makes a third at a spot near the neutral creep, he can get a high ground sunken defense covering both ramps for a fourth but reavers should be stronger if they get to that spot so uhh
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ru29Uar.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gcdjITy.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I7hExZ7.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hEfZnx1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RTwIqJI.jpg)
