|
On January 18 2011 14:31 monitor wrote:These maps are not narrow funnels in the slightest. If you compare them to standard Blizzard maps, they have more open spaces. The chokes that are existent are placed for specific balance, concept, and expo pattern reasons. If there is a specific map example that you could point out with distinct imbalance by "narrow funnels" please tell, we will take it into consideration. Show nested quote +
7 nodes on thirds and 5 on gold bases? What's with mappers liking to remove 1 node from an expansion? It's like that on shakuras for ALL expansions except mains, but that maps too awesome to discard it for that reason. I see no point at all to it. Not a fan of gimmick expansions.
Adding on to what prodiG said (which is right too): On Neo Enigma, expansions are very compact around the main. You can very easily secure a natural, a 3rd, and a 4th following. The current expansions have less mineral patches to balance the tightness. If expansions had main: 8 nat: 8 HY: 6 4th: 8 Then it would likely be too easy to turtle. It is standard for 3rd/5ths to have 7 minerals. The high yield is not standard, but with 6 nodes it'd be too easy to saturate in certain spawn postions. If there is any question, we will know it from top-level player feedback in tomorrow's IMS.
I only say that, because he said no "useless" space. Which seems to be most map makers queue to not make any open space. Take it with a grain of salt, it only looks like that.
And it is not standard to have 7 nodes at all. The only maps on ladder that have 7 on a base is LT and Shakuras. LT only has that on the islands. Shakuras has 7 on all non-main bases. I think what the thinking seems to be is that you have 3rd and 4th running while main/nat are still active. 3rd and 4th more serve to replace your main and nat. So it's strange for the game to progress from 2 8 node bases down to 5 and 7 making for late games to regress economically UNLESS you get 3rd and 4th up while main and naturals are still active which would basically punish a mass expanding zerg player by limiting his potential income even if just slightly.
I don't think I need to go over the PAIN it will be to have to maynard over workers and end up being oversaturated. It's inconsistent.
If you want to balance the position of an expansion, you shouldn't mess with the resources and look at other things in terrain. Even then you don't get a choice of expansions most of the time. Players always expand to the nearest expansion and crawl outwards. So it's not like you're making any compelling choices. Just regressing the economic potential of late game play.
And the reality is everyone is theorycrafting. Who has extensive play on new maps like this?
|
On January 18 2011 15:49 Ownos wrote:
I only say that, because he said no "useless" space. Which seems to be most map makers queue to not make any open space. Take it with a grain of salt, it only looks like that.
And it is not standard to have 7 nodes at all. The only maps on ladder that have 7 on a base is LT and Shakuras. LT only has that on the islands. Shakuras has 7 on all non-main bases. I think what the thinking seems to be is that you have 3rd and 4th running while main/nat are still active. 3rd and 4th more serve to replace your main and nat. So it's strange for the game to progress from 2 8 node bases down to 5 and 7 making for late games to regress economically UNLESS you get 3rd and 4th up while main and naturals are still active which would basically punish a mass expanding zerg player by limiting his potential income even if just slightly.
I don't think I need to go over the PAIN it will be to have to maynard over workers and end up being oversaturated. It's inconsistent.
If you want to balance the position of an expansion, you shouldn't mess with the resources and look at other things in terrain. Even then you don't get a choice of expansions most of the time. Players always expand to the nearest expansion and crawl outwards. So it's not like you're making any compelling choices. Just regressing the economic potential of late game play.
And the reality is everyone is theorycrafting. Who has extensive play on new maps like this?
For the late game regression I cannot say much but it does seem like a legitimate concern. I'll play some more test games when I have access to SC2.
The PAIN for oversaturating when one manyards is not a legitimate concern. It is up to the player to adapt to the map. It is about as much as a pain as flash not being able to 15cc no scout every game. The onus is on the player to play correctly given the map. If you can't manyard over the correct number of probes it's your fault not the maps. Yes this is inconsistent but that is the point. Maps should have variations and one's playstyle should vary in response to the maps as well.
The games I have played on the map have been good so far. I haven't noticed the late game economic regression you've talked about but I'll keep an eye out for it.
|
On January 19 2011 15:47 G_Wen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 15:49 Ownos wrote:
I only say that, because he said no "useless" space. Which seems to be most map makers queue to not make any open space. Take it with a grain of salt, it only looks like that.
And it is not standard to have 7 nodes at all. The only maps on ladder that have 7 on a base is LT and Shakuras. LT only has that on the islands. Shakuras has 7 on all non-main bases. I think what the thinking seems to be is that you have 3rd and 4th running while main/nat are still active. 3rd and 4th more serve to replace your main and nat. So it's strange for the game to progress from 2 8 node bases down to 5 and 7 making for late games to regress economically UNLESS you get 3rd and 4th up while main and naturals are still active which would basically punish a mass expanding zerg player by limiting his potential income even if just slightly.
I don't think I need to go over the PAIN it will be to have to maynard over workers and end up being oversaturated. It's inconsistent.
If you want to balance the position of an expansion, you shouldn't mess with the resources and look at other things in terrain. Even then you don't get a choice of expansions most of the time. Players always expand to the nearest expansion and crawl outwards. So it's not like you're making any compelling choices. Just regressing the economic potential of late game play.
And the reality is everyone is theorycrafting. Who has extensive play on new maps like this? For the late game regression I cannot say much but it does seem like a legitimate concern. I'll play some more test games when I have access to SC2. The PAIN for oversaturating when one manyards is not a legitimate concern. It is up to the player to adapt to the map. It is about as much as a pain as flash not being able to 15cc no scout every game. The onus is on the player to play correctly given the map. If you can't manyard over the correct number of probes it's your fault not the maps. Yes this is inconsistent but that is the point. Maps should have variations and one's playstyle should vary in response to the maps as well. The games I have played on the map have been good so far. I haven't noticed the late game economic regression you've talked about but I'll keep an eye out for it.
I don't think you'dget any regression at all unless you've mined out every base but one or two and have more workers that you need to saturarte the last few bases. Any other scenarioseems to me like it'd be a lack of expanding from the player.
|
played on this map tonight in the IMS KOTH. I must say its fucking baller. i love it. well designed. positions aren't too far or too close. i feel like its just right. map looks beautiful too. i love the towers. Keep up the good work and keep pumpin out sexy maps.
|
On January 18 2011 00:54 branflakes14 wrote:
Looks pretty good. No backdoor nonsense, there's a choice of expanding towards or away from your opponent at your third, Xel'naga looks important. Only thing I'm not so keen on is the walls around the centre of the map. Every map seems so enclosed.
i think the walls in the cetner of the map are good. they still allow flanks to be good but not completely broken.
|
Hah finally some good map
|
On January 18 2011 07:08 MindRush wrote:
prodiG ...... thanks alot, can i play this on EU ?
i would love to play this asap :> europeans can do bug testing too 
|
The gold minerals make this map positionally imbalanced. Spawns at 10 and 2, I'd be praying for 10; I'd be able to take the gold while expanding away from my opponent, whereas at 2, I'd have to take the blue for a similarly defensible position.
|
On January 19 2011 23:24 Obscura.304 wrote:
The gold minerals make this map positionally imbalanced. Spawns at 10 and 2, I'd be praying for 10; I'd be able to take the gold while expanding away from my opponent, whereas at 2, I'd have to take the blue for a similarly defensible position. that's the idea!
Map will be up in EU later today.
|
On January 19 2011 23:33 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 23:24 Obscura.304 wrote:
The gold minerals make this map positionally imbalanced. Spawns at 10 and 2, I'd be praying for 10; I'd be able to take the gold while expanding away from my opponent, whereas at 2, I'd have to take the blue for a similarly defensible position. that's the idea! Map will be up in EU later today.
So you want whoever spawns counter-clockwise of their opponent to have an advantage? Why?
|
On January 19 2011 23:47 Obscura.304 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 23:33 prodiG wrote:On January 19 2011 23:24 Obscura.304 wrote:
The gold minerals make this map positionally imbalanced. Spawns at 10 and 2, I'd be praying for 10; I'd be able to take the gold while expanding away from my opponent, whereas at 2, I'd have to take the blue for a similarly defensible position. that's the idea! Map will be up in EU later today. So you want whoever spawns counter-clockwise of their opponent to have an advantage? Why?
You'd have to take the blue and have a more defensible position, while attacking into your opponent's gold as the base is more open and easier to drop onto. I wouldn't call this an imbalance as the gold only has five patches and the options for harassing it or attacking into it are great & testing seems to have proved this.
|
On January 19 2011 23:57 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 23:47 Obscura.304 wrote:On January 19 2011 23:33 prodiG wrote:On January 19 2011 23:24 Obscura.304 wrote:
The gold minerals make this map positionally imbalanced. Spawns at 10 and 2, I'd be praying for 10; I'd be able to take the gold while expanding away from my opponent, whereas at 2, I'd have to take the blue for a similarly defensible position. that's the idea! Map will be up in EU later today. So you want whoever spawns counter-clockwise of their opponent to have an advantage? Why? You'd have to take the blue and have a more defensible position, while attacking into your opponent's gold as the base is more open and easier to drop onto. I wouldn't call this an imbalance as the gold only has five patches and the options for harassing it or attacking into it are great & testing seems to have proved this.
You really can't say something like this is balanced though, because the fact that there's 3 different races throws a wrench in it. Given spawns at 10 and 2, is the gold for the 10 o'clock player still so harassable if they're T and just drop a Planetary Fortress there? What about Protosses at 2 who aren't going air- how are they going to harass that, given that P has no really good non-air units for harassing? What about ZvP, with the Zerg at 2- since Z can't go mutas safely in that matchup for fear of the 6 gate, how do you consider that balanced?
|
Gold expo's are overrated, especially considering this one only has 5 patches. Really the difference between that and the 7-patch blue expo's is minimal at most, even with mules and planetary's thrown into the equation. I don't think it's a massive cause for concern.
|
Yeah I agree, the normal expo gives Terran a so much easier to defend position because of the highground and less openness. They might be able to have an OC at the normal expo but are kinda forced to have a PF at the gold, so it should be balanced.
Anyway, this map is just pure gold, I love it!
|
I just hosted a game on this map and everyone loved it. My computer didn't lag at all either, and I'm on a Mac. Not a Macbook Pro, just a Macbook, and it ran smoothly.
What everyone in observer chat was saying was that they thought that Terran could get a third easily with a Planetary Fortress. That was their only concern.
Great map prodiG!
|
On January 20 2011 02:02 Antares777 wrote:
I just hosted a game on this map and everyone loved it. My computer didn't lag at all either, and I'm on a Mac. Not a Macbook Pro, just a Macbook, and it ran smoothly.
What everyone in observer chat was saying was that they thought that Terran could get a third easily with a Planetary Fortress. That was their only concern.
Great map prodiG!
The way I see it, if any map has an easy third terran can hold it with a planetarty fortress because that's what they do. This is counteracted somewhat by the drop harass but players have to adapt their style around it if they want to take advantage.
Thanks for the feedback; D
|
Dude the map didnt get affected at all by your tuning down still very pretty.  how many doodads u got now? u told me u had 2230 before. I'm really curious how much u had to remove to make it work properly
Edit: btw the gold minerals, they arent mirrored are they? i saw there was diffrence in them. Reason why u got that?
|
On January 20 2011 03:53 Silv.user wrote:Dude the map didnt get affected at all by your tuning down still very pretty. how many doodads u got now? u told me u had 2230 before. I'm really curious how much u had to remove to make it work properly Edit: btw the gold minerals, they arent mirrored are they? i saw there was diffrence in them. Reason why u got that?
Minerals are 2x1 not 1x1 so you can't rotate them 90 degrees and expect them to fit in the same area.
|
The northeast gold and southwest gold is similar, however the west and east is completly diffrent. + the south one idont get the clue of at all. Im aware on how minerals works. but having an advantage if u spawn at one locaiton on ure gold isnt mirrored. wouldnt take alot time to fix tho. + The NE,SW isnt mirrored. Which they should be prob. + if u cant make decent minerals lines wouldnt harm to rotate it a itsy bit?
|
On January 20 2011 04:07 Silv.user wrote:
The northeast gold and southwest gold is similar, however the west and east is completly diffrent. + the south one idont get the clue of at all. Im aware on how minerals works. but having an advantage if u spawn at one locaiton on ure gold isnt mirrored. wouldnt take alot time to fix tho. + The NE,SW isnt mirrored. Which they should be prob. + if u cant make decent minerals lines wouldnt harm to rotate it a itsy bit?
Like antares said, mineral fields are 2x1 so I can only copy minerals on sectipns of the map that are inverted 90 180 (oops, wrong #) degrees in the symmetry. Simply put, I can have asymmetrical mineral lines on on two corners of the map, but the other two must be tweaked in order to fit. The distance of tether patches is relatively the same to all of the elements around the patches so that while different they are not imbalanced (or if they are, the issue is negligible as I cant rotate minerals to be 1x2 so I am making the best of what I've got.)
Lot of nitpicking today, nice to see my map so heavily under the microscope!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
