|
On August 08 2010 12:43 monitor wrote:
Just played a couple games on Starchild, found some serious imbalances. Take this situation for example:
You are playing Protoss. You spawn in the 10 o'clock position, and forge FE into your natural (normal so far). You hold out for long enough until you need a third base. You expand to the 6 o'clock position (to the left of the opponent's natural). Now here are the unbalances with this situation:
1. You get two more free bases (1 HY, 1 normal) because they are easily protected
2. You get infinite harass on their natural (break destro. rocks or warp across using a pylon)
3. You can defend the main path by easily moving your army to the middle (very short)
If you need a replay as proof, I will gladly send it to you via email. I think there are a couple ways to fix this:
1. Move the expansion set of three to be a bit more spread out
2. Move destro. rocks towards to the 1) right on top 2) left on bottom
I have some speculation of unbalance on some other maps too, but I need to confirm by testing in-game. Hopefully this can help make them better!
I don't think that is imbalance. Because your opponent can do the same. I've gone and put cannons on the cliff above my opponents natural. It's not imbalance. It's me using the map. Obviously if you have map control defending bases and harass become easier. I'm not saying the map is perfect, but its got some differences that are worth trying out.
|
On August 08 2010 12:47 Alou wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 12:43 monitor wrote:
Just played a couple games on Starchild, found some serious imbalances. Take this situation for example:
You are playing Protoss. You spawn in the 10 o'clock position, and forge FE into your natural (normal so far). You hold out for long enough until you need a third base. You expand to the 6 o'clock position (to the left of the opponent's natural). Now here are the unbalances with this situation:
1. You get two more free bases (1 HY, 1 normal) because they are easily protected
2. You get infinite harass on their natural (break destro. rocks or warp across using a pylon)
3. You can defend the main path by easily moving your army to the middle (very short)
If you need a replay as proof, I will gladly send it to you via email. I think there are a couple ways to fix this:
1. Move the expansion set of three to be a bit more spread out
2. Move destro. rocks towards to the 1) right on top 2) left on bottom
I have some speculation of unbalance on some other maps too, but I need to confirm by testing in-game. Hopefully this can help make them better! I don't think that is imbalance. Because your opponent can do the same. I've gone and put cannons on the cliff above my opponents natural. It's not imbalance. It's me using the map. Obviously if you have map control defending bases and harass become easier. I'm not saying the map is perfect, but its got some differences that are worth trying out.
I would say you are abusing map imbalances. But putting cannons on the natural's cliff is not the issue to me...
The main problem is getting three free bases once you expand there and being able to harass their natural so easily. Changing the location of the 3rd/4th/HY would fix the problem- maybe consider moving one to the way the original drawing showed, and give the HY multiple entrances?
Also, how realistic is it for both players to do that?
EDIT: added picture of warp-in: is this intentional?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I have to side with Monitor on this one. Ill give you a GIMP diagram.
![[image loading]](http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/nsap-weu/Starchildimba.jpg?t=1281240790)
The red is the protoss
The Blue is the Terran
Green is the protoss pylon and its AOE
Light green are the potential bases for protoss
Black lines with arrows are travel paths
Large circles are bases
small Dots are Observers
semicircles are the players army
|
The pylon thing with warping without the rocks needs to be changed. I wasn't aware of that, but the thing about expanding is rubbish.
|
What about that is rubbish?
|
On August 08 2010 13:33 used man wrote:
What about that is rubbish?
Your problem is that taking one expo means taking another is safer. LT - I spawn at 6 and take 3's natural. Now 3 becomes safe to take. That's not imbalance that's a person playing the map. I don't see how that's bad at all.
|
On Lost Temple, if you expand as you say, it is impossible to defend all four of those to flanks/ drops. As opposed to Starchild where you get that + a high-yield, and still be almost immune to flanks/ drops.
|
|
|
The map balance suggestions above will need to be considered.
Also, please continue with balance input. We cannot promise all the suggestions translate to changes as (as i have always believed) map IM-balances actually balance a map, but I can say all maps need continuous revision and your comments help work towards that revision.
Keep them coming.
|
Thanks konicki  I have a few speculations about Aztec, but I have to play a few games before confirming.
|
On August 08 2010 12:47 Alou wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 12:43 monitor wrote:
Just played a couple games on Starchild, found some serious imbalances. Take this situation for example:
You are playing Protoss. You spawn in the 10 o'clock position, and forge FE into your natural (normal so far). You hold out for long enough until you need a third base. You expand to the 6 o'clock position (to the left of the opponent's natural). Now here are the unbalances with this situation:
1. You get two more free bases (1 HY, 1 normal) because they are easily protected
2. You get infinite harass on their natural (break destro. rocks or warp across using a pylon)
3. You can defend the main path by easily moving your army to the middle (very short)
If you need a replay as proof, I will gladly send it to you via email. I think there are a couple ways to fix this:
1. Move the expansion set of three to be a bit more spread out
2. Move destro. rocks towards to the 1) right on top 2) left on bottom
I have some speculation of unbalance on some other maps too, but I need to confirm by testing in-game. Hopefully this can help make them better! I don't think that is imbalance. Because your opponent can do the same. I've gone and put cannons on the cliff above my opponents natural. It's not imbalance. It's me using the map. Obviously if you have map control defending bases and harass become easier. I'm not saying the map is perfect, but its got some differences that are worth trying out.
The things monitor described other than the pylon are all intended. Players will be punished for being passive as its so easy to expand, which was EXACTLY the idea. The pylon across I think ill fix, but the bases aren't moving.
|
On August 09 2010 04:36 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 12:47 Alou wrote:On August 08 2010 12:43 monitor wrote:
Just played a couple games on Starchild, found some serious imbalances. Take this situation for example:
You are playing Protoss. You spawn in the 10 o'clock position, and forge FE into your natural (normal so far). You hold out for long enough until you need a third base. You expand to the 6 o'clock position (to the left of the opponent's natural). Now here are the unbalances with this situation:
1. You get two more free bases (1 HY, 1 normal) because they are easily protected
2. You get infinite harass on their natural (break destro. rocks or warp across using a pylon)
3. You can defend the main path by easily moving your army to the middle (very short)
If you need a replay as proof, I will gladly send it to you via email. I think there are a couple ways to fix this:
1. Move the expansion set of three to be a bit more spread out
2. Move destro. rocks towards to the 1) right on top 2) left on bottom
I have some speculation of unbalance on some other maps too, but I need to confirm by testing in-game. Hopefully this can help make them better! I don't think that is imbalance. Because your opponent can do the same. I've gone and put cannons on the cliff above my opponents natural. It's not imbalance. It's me using the map. Obviously if you have map control defending bases and harass become easier. I'm not saying the map is perfect, but its got some differences that are worth trying out. The things monitor described other than the pylon are all intended. Players will be punished for being passive as its so easy to expand, which was EXACTLY the idea. The pylon across I think ill fix, but the bases aren't moving.
Being passive is not the problem as I see it. Basically, you cannot let your opponent expand above your natural, or you lose. This also nullifies a lot of defensive builds, because if you get contained you have almost no way to win.
If it is an even match, expanding there as a third has no drawbacks. You can easily defend it and your main, get off a lot of harass, and take two more bases with no trouble. This is not an early game problem, because it only happens once mid-late game kicks in. I do like how battles take place in the center of the map instead of in front of bases (Blizzard maps = fail).
|
so is it just me. I think turtlers adapt and simply wall off their front choke break down the rocks and start expanding in that direction before pushing out?
as said by monitor but expanding there do have drawbacks for any build that is not purely gateway units. as their reinforcements will take longer to get there.,
|
Expanding to the right gives you a free high-yield, but you cannot easily defend the bases.
|
On August 09 2010 12:50 monitor wrote:
Being passive is not the problem as I see it. Basically, you cannot let your opponent expand above your natural, or you lose. This also nullifies a lot of defensive builds, because if you get contained you have almost no way to win.
If it is an even match, expanding there as a third has no drawbacks. You can easily defend it and your main, get off a lot of harass, and take two more bases with no trouble. This is not an early game problem, because it only happens once mid-late game kicks in. I do like how battles take place in the center of the map instead of in front of bases (Blizzard maps = fail).
If you let your opponent set up outside of your base, since when are you supposed to be able to win?
When mid-late game kicks in, you should be aware of what's going around the map. An opponent trying to expand right beside you should be pretty easy to punish him for. I honestly don't agree with pretty much anything other than the pylon comment, but we'll see what testing shows
On August 09 2010 13:41 monitor wrote:
Expanding to the right gives you a free high-yield, but you cannot easily defend the bases.
A free high yield that when saturated is worth less than any other base on the map.
On August 09 2010 13:36 Madkipz wrote:
so is it just me. I think turtlers adapt and simply wall off their front choke break down the rocks and start expanding in that direction before pushing out?
as said by monitor but expanding there do have drawbacks for any build that is not purely gateway units. as their reinforcements will take longer to get there.,
Why is walling the choke and breaking the rocks not a viable strategy? It's done on blistering sands all the time...
|
Here are some simple thoughts (based off Nightmarejoo's BW post):
+ Show Spoiler +
On Python, there are many complex aspects of why it is a good map. An open middle favors a maneuverable army for flanking and map control. The natural, island, and 3rd bases have no where to easily harass, favoring the non-mobile race. Harass is used to hurt the turtlers because their army can't defend all of their bases. Since the expos are so spread out, the turtler can't just sit there- he has to be aggressive. The mobile race also can't defend their expansions all at once, so they have to sit back a bit more than they are comfortable with. Essentially, both races are equally mobile and immobile.
As Nightmarjoo says, "The most important things to consider when executing map concepts are expo distance, pathing, harassability, and moving-room."
Anyway, I do really like the iCCup maps, looking forward to the future ones too!
|
On August 09 2010 14:10 prodiG wrote:
A free high yield that when saturated is worth less than any other base on the map.
Im not going to take issue with the rest of your post, but this is just false. A fully saturated 6 mineral high yield provides 5% more income. It also requires less workers.
|
United States47024 Posts
Wow, some great maps were chosen here!
If anyone's interested, I'll probably be testing some zerg wall-ins vs. Hellions on these maps later, and possibly make a post about where you can and can't wall (my gut instinct is that both the BW ports are wallable--make sense seeing as similar wall-ins are used in SC1). May or may not be relevant in the future, but perhaps it's something to keep in mind with regard to map design and balance.
EDIT: From some initial walling attempts on Match Point, top and bottom positions aren't symmetrical--there's a little extra space that top position has to deal with that's a little more troublesome:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i36.tinypic.com/a122oo.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i36.tinypic.com/291izdf.jpg) Note in the first picture I need the spine crawler to close the gap between the hatchery and the ledge, when I don't need it in the 2nd picture.
EDIT 2: A similar positional imbalance exists on FS. Both left positions don't require spine crawlers to form hellion-tight wall-ins, while both right positions do:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 09 2010 17:49 used man wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 14:10 prodiG wrote:
A free high yield that when saturated is worth less than any other base on the map.
Im not going to take issue with the rest of your post, but this is just false. A fully saturated 6 mineral high yield provides 5% more income. It also requires less workers.
There's only five patches, I changed this in the latest version  I was talking specifically for this map, I dropped it down to five to make it less appealing in the mid and late game (when you can transfer enough workers to saturate almost instantly)
On August 09 2010 18:55 TheYango wrote:Wow, some great maps were chosen here! If anyone's interested, I'll probably be testing some zerg wall-ins vs. Hellions on these maps later, and possibly make a post about where you can and can't wall (my gut instinct is that both the BW ports are wallable--make sense seeing as similar wall-ins are used in SC1). May or may not be relevant in the future, but perhaps it's something to keep in mind with regard to map design and balance. EDIT: From some initial walling attempts on Match Point, top and bottom positions aren't symmetrical--there's a little extra space that top position has to deal with that's a little more troublesome: + Show Spoiler +Note in the first picture I need the spine crawler to close the gap between the hatchery and the ledge, when I don't need it in the 2nd picture. EDIT 2: A similar positional imbalance exists on FS. Both left positions don't require spine crawlers to form hellion-tight wall-ins, while both right positions do: + Show Spoiler +
Thanks for this, i'll definitely look into it some more
|
Just updated Starchild:
![[image loading]](http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/600/starchild12.jpg)
Changelog
Version 1.2
-Added rocks and building blockers to prevent protoss from warping units in behind the rock @ natural
-Added destructible rock to 2 and 6 o'clock expansions to make mass expanding take longer
Version 1.1
-Changed the gold to only have 5 mineral patches instead of six
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.majhost.com/gallery/peytonlevin/TeamSix/starchild_warpin.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i36.tinypic.com/nx0579.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i38.tinypic.com/rtm7bo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i37.tinypic.com/vqto9c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i36.tinypic.com/oqymis.jpg)
