|
On May 18 2011 18:47 Meltage wrote:@prodiG/Monitor - this glitch, is it somethign that occurs to every map that weas saved before the patch.. or? How to avoid? Thanks What's your thought on rotational symetry imbalances? To clarify, on this map, in close positions, one player will have it's third close to the opponent, while the other will have it away (and will have nat much closer by air). Also, I must ask, since I've got conflicting information .. expanding away and towards your opponent, what makes those decisions? First I thought that was simply a matter of being offensive or defensive as a player in the current match, but now I wonder if it's more of a matchup issue? I've heard that Z wants to expand away from opponent ... but why? As Z I rather expand towards, so that I can get creep spread closer to the opponent bases. Just to say something on topic ... I also want the map on EU. With the motm tag is fine 
I don't know what causes the glitch but it may be due to the fact that the map has campaign dependencies for additional doodads.
As for rotational symmertry imbalances, the map still leaves you with plenty of options. I can't think of a scenario where someone would lose because they had to expand elsewhere on the map instead of their pre-designated third. The gold expansion and lowground third are both close enough that in either close position taking either one will not be the difference between a win or a loss.
Rotational symmetry maps have been around forever and they're not going anywhere. As long as the map is designed well, the imbalances are not going to ruin games (and when someone says they do, I wouldn't be surprised when they can't show me a dozen replays showing the problem instead of games filled with huge mistakes. That said if they can, I'd be happy to look more into it.)
Your expansion path is very stylistic. If you're an aggressive Zerg player who wants to be able to clear the map quickly to keep the pressure on so your opponent stays in the corner, then maybe expanding towards your opponent is the right choice. Sometimes the game will flow in a way that you simply cannot expand towards your opponent safely and you'll have to expand away in order to keep up in the macro game. There's no super-textbook answer to that question, I think - but if you find something that works, stick to it.
I'll get the map up on EU shortly~
|
Been playing this map quite a bit, really really like it. Still have the gripe about the nat ramp, but it's one of the best maps out there, period.
|
On May 20 2011 04:36 BluePanther wrote:
Been playing this map quite a bit, really really like it. Still have the gripe about the nat ramp, but it's one of the best maps out there, period.
Ithaca 1.1 is now up on EU & NA
Changes:
-Some superfluous doodads removed & repositioned to slightly improve performance on some systems
-Main base pulled a little bit away from the natural expansion's ramp
-Small texture changes/improvements
-Pathing fixes
-Creep tumor bug fixed
|
Is it intentional that there are not "steps" for an early reaperscout? I don't know exactly about the pros and cons but I always thought about it as something positive, cause early scouting = less random game.
|
On July 05 2011 20:11 Ragoo wrote:
Is it intentional that there are not "steps" for an early reaperscout? I don't know exactly about the pros and cons but I always thought about it as something positive, cause early scouting = less random game.
It is intentional. I wanted the main base, natural and space outside to function very similar to Shakuras Plateau. Reapers still can sneak in although they'll have to show up a bit earlier.
|
On July 05 2011 23:27 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 20:11 Ragoo wrote:
Is it intentional that there are not "steps" for an early reaperscout? I don't know exactly about the pros and cons but I always thought about it as something positive, cause early scouting = less random game. It is intentional. I wanted the main base, natural and space outside to function very similar to Shakuras Plateau. Reapers still can sneak in although they'll have to show up a bit earlier.
But on Shakuras reapers can also get into the main via the (former) backdoor, where as I don't think that's possible on Ithaca, seems it's only accessible via the natural, assuming the platform with all the trees is completely unpathable. I don't think this is a big concern though.. just being pedantic.
|
Thinking about it every map that's competitively nowadays has a front and back entrance for reapers. Maybe the only exception is Crevasse but it's not that important cause Crevasse has an inbase expo anyway, so I guess you don't need that much scouting like you normally would with reaper FE.
So I would totally make that small change and add steps for reapers so that players can use their standard reaper FE opening. Unless of course you have a very good reason that you don't want it.
|
On July 06 2011 20:10 Ragoo wrote:
Thinking about it every map that's competitively nowadays has a front and back entrance for reapers. Maybe the only exception is Crevasse but it's not that important cause Crevasse has an inbase expo anyway, so I guess you don't need that much scouting like you normally would with reaper FE.
So I would totally make that small change and add steps for reapers so that players can use their standard reaper FE opening. Unless of course you have a very good reason that you don't want it.
I suppose it couldn't hurt. I can't think of a strong reason not to include them so long as I can make them not take up too much space, which shouldn't be a problem.
|
Ithaca has been updated!
Ithaca by prodiG v2
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q9hFZ.jpg)
Click to enlarge
Click here to see top-down view
Features
-Small bridge leading to close-by third expansion
-Xel'Naga Tower in open area outside of natural expansion providing vision of the ramps leading to the center and gold
-Gold expansion blocked by destructible rocks
-Middle is relatively open with choked areas, choose battles wisely
-Spacious, safe, easy to wall natural expansion (two ramps wide, like Shakuras Plateau)
-Reaper/Colossus cliffwalk patio leading into main
-Waterfalls and beaches! :D!!!
Ithaca v2
Why: The Korean Weekly tournament showed a skewed result in PvZ (81.8% in favor of Zerg after ~15 games) and rather than waiting for a larger sample size I decided to take the initiative and make some changes which are as follows:
-Third expansion closer to main and natural
-Ramp to middle split into two 2x ramps
-Xel'Naga Towers moved to open area outside of natural expansion
-Middle slightly more choked
-Bridge and ramp to third shrunk to two forcefields wide
For an in-depth analysis as to why these changes were made, tune into MapCraft: State of the Terrain Episode 4 on Sunday, Oct 23 6:30pm GMT (GMT+00:00) on ESV.TV!
|
your Country52798 Posts
I heard you're going back into mapmaking.
|
Sad to see the destructible towers go, on the other hand now you can submit this to the TL contest.
I like the changes, I always thought the third was too far away for Protoss so I'm very happy that changed! 
|
United States10492 Posts
holy shit soooo sexy. happy to see you back, we need more maps from your prodiG!
|
nvm
+ Show Spoiler +Anyway, I think that the changes you implemented are a great start but I feel that there's more that could be done to fix potential imbalances. With the gold expansions acting as alternate thirds, blocking them with rocks (or destructible towers) makes sense, but not on a 4 player rotational map. Due to spawns, Zerg can sometimes be forced to expand towards his opponent instead of away from them if they do a fast expanding build. With the water creeping very close to the third as well, there's no room on that side to hide some units so that when the enemy walks down the ramp into the third he only has to fight one direction, decreasing the chances of surrounds and flanks to defend that area. Without analyzer images, it's a little bit difficult for me to be able to tell the exact bounds of the Xel'naga Towers, but right now, I think they help the attacking player get a contain rather than the defending player. Since it's right up against the cliff, controlling it will be difficult unless you control the center of the map (which in most cases means you are the attacking player). An attacking player will have an easier time denying the defending player from his own Xel'naga Tower, making pushes into the natural easier. Particularly Protoss will have a large advantage. The Colossus can see directly over the cliff blocking sight to the Xe'naga Tower from the center of the map, and can walk up and down the cliffs in the middle. This gives Protoss a large advantage when it comes to map control. Also, outside the natural, you have a high ground obstruction that with the combination of force fields can greatly harm the other races. I can see that it's overall size was shrunk, but I strongly feel that it should be shrunk more, or possibly removed. On top of this, the addition of the Xel'naga Towers caused the decrease in ramp size. Moving a large army to attack the middle is now quite difficult. And the side paths aren't much better in terms of choke width. The ramps to the natural are still 2x wide and a Protoss player can easily fast expand. This map was used on the Korean Weekly, and I didn't watch any of those games, so I could be misguided with some of my thoughts. I'm just having difficulty in seeing how your changes made the map less Protoss favored to the extent needed for balance. I'd like to suggest a few things: Increasing the size of the intended third outward into the water more would allow easier flanks when an attacking force comes down the ramp from the gold. Altering the area outside the natural, whether it be remove/shrink the obstruction, or remove the line of sight blockers to make a third more difficult for Protoss to expand/defend. Moving the Xel'naga Towers and adding the large ramps back would be a good idea in my honest opinion, but I wouldn't know what to do with the Xel'naga Towers after that. The only thing I could think of regarding that would be to put just one in the middle, but that is uncreative and probably imbalanced with the chokes already in existence in the center. Maybe if you place a Xel'naga Tower there, you could pull the obstructions towards it so that one touches each corner and creates 4 mini paths that access the tower, but are blocked by it as well (not a through path). That would create more room in the center because the obstructions would be less spread out and closer to the center of the map. I hope you find my feedback useful, and good luck in the competition!  Oh, I almost forgot your welcome back present! + Show Spoiler +
|
I knew Protoss was too strong on this map ever since I watched the MOTM tournament (I think it was MOTM6) and saw a Sentry heavy Protoss force annihilate an enemy Zerg army using force fields right outside the natural because of the high ground chunk right there.
It was 81.8% in favor of Zerg, not Protoss 
The map is designed to have a very safe natural expansion but if you lose control of the space outside of your natural you're in a LOT of trouble.
|
Those changes look very good.
|
On October 19 2011 07:23 prodiG wrote:It was 81.8% in favor of Zerg, not Protoss
O_O
I'm going to go crawl under my rock now.
|
Has the map been tested since you introduced the new version? I would love to see how such relatively 'minor' changes effect game balance.
|
This map looks great, and feels great, but the Protoss decals look very out of place with the general stone & water approach that you have.
|
On October 19 2011 07:55 Chargelot wrote:
Has the map been tested since you introduced the new version? I would love to see how such relatively 'minor' changes effect game balance.
Being played right now on Korean Weekly, ForGG (the BW progamer!!!!!!!) vs Tassadar
www.esvtv.com
|
On October 19 2011 08:19 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 07:55 Chargelot wrote:
Has the map been tested since you introduced the new version? I would love to see how such relatively 'minor' changes effect game balance. Being played right now on Korean Weekly, ForGG (the BW progamer!!!!!!!) vs Tassadar www.esvtv.com
Indeed, these games will definitely show whether the small changes will affect balance. And I can tell you that they will change it (most likely correct the imbalance to be closer to 50-50).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
