Map of the Month #9 - Page 20

---

+ Show Spoiler +
First of all, if you're supposed to potatoballs judgement of a map and you look at a picture like this, it's just confusing as hell. To clarify, this is actually an asymmetrical map, so it's really supposed to look weird. If you're past this there are still a few things you can discover. As example, why are there 3 tiny ramps instead of a big one? What are those tiny paths/ramps in the middle right doing? Why does this whole map look like some kind of battle droid with some sort of horn attached to his forehead and his male genitals sticking out?

Well I can tell you right here! Ok I lied, noone but the creator can give you the answers you are seeking. But I can tell you one thing. Have you ever imagined how it would look like if you took all the crazy features you can think of and stuff it into one map? Yes? Well I have too and I don't know what would come out. But back to this map. It too is really crazy and doesn't try to be balanced like all those mainstream maps. I have no idea how it would play out and probably never will but I just must say one more thing about the map's looks: The aesthetics work is amazing and you can see how much time was put into it. I'm sure we'll see a lot more of our friend RumbleBadger in the future. So congratulations to you for securing this months 'Justin Bieber Award'.

So when I look at this map, this is what I see:



If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience.

From a zerg pov,



The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass.

Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg.

Okay first, I would actually expand in the opposite direction, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with yours.



Circles are Terran bases. Boxes are armies. Now, if Terran secures the watch tower with his whole army, he is already in a dangerous situation as he is too far from his main to properly defend. If he even tries to move to attack, the Zerg army instantly has a ton of different paths to flank, and counter. There is no way you can both attack and defend your own base at the same time. Due to how slow the Terran army is in comparison to a Zerg's, you won't be able to keep up and you will lose.

If this were Starcraft 1, then yeah, Terran would be able to secure the entire high ground with that position, and probably have a safe natural too. In SC2 though, units path a lot better even through smaller chokes, and there is no miss chance going up cliffs.

Now the REASON I would expand the other way is because of the problems I listed above. By expanding to the 1 gas, you keep your army relatively close to your base and you have a viable fourth base to take.

youve seemed to completely ignore my points on these chokes. i guess a better picture will help?



you can see the effect of the size of the chokes in the above. the third can be completely walled off, and the nat area can be walled as well as shown above using any combination of buildings and supply depots. the pink area is the siege tank range and you should start to get an idea of what im talking about with my second point from the previous post. this is another reason why its super safe to expand towards the 2gas rather than the 1gas.

ask yourself, would you as a terran actually run back to try to kill that army? how effective are zerglings when attacking through a funnel like that defended by even 3 siege tanks? well ... any zerg ground unit for that matter. you obviously let your defence deal (delay) with it while you move into the defenceless zerg base? all terrans do this because base race situations always force the zerg to return to defend their paltry amount of and immovable buildings.

I'm sorry but three siege tanks is a huge force to leave behind in the mid-game. Not to mention that any decent Zerg army can break the wall, or with the wall in your picture, go through it. Having been through countless base race situations myself against Terran, I am positive that Zerg will completely destroy Terran in that situation.

I'll start off by saying that I don't favor any of the maps here in particular and I'm not bent out of shape that any particular map did or didn't make it. I also haven't ready a lot of this discussion, but for some reason I was inclined to post this:

I honestly think people are going very overboard with the balance discussion and it sounds and looks like the MotM judging team is falling into the same trap as everyone else. I don't think it will be possible to claim that most maps are balanced or not simply by picking it apart piece by piece, staring at a picture. Maps require hundreds of games to truly get a sense of the balance as the pro players figure out all of the ways to utilize all of the different features.

If PRECISE map balance is ignored for this tournament in favor of just general map balance, it will allow the judges to focus on maps that are PRETTY, UNIQUE, and FUN. If balance issues arise, typically they can be squashed or mitigated by simple readjustments to terrain or resource placement.

In my opinion, when maps for this tournament are analyzed for balance, it should be a relatively simple process, something like this:

1. Is the main 'standard'? IE is it around 27-35 CCs big with a 1 unit ramp or 5 unit choke as the only entrance?
1. Is the rush distance natural to natural over 100?
2. Is the natural securable by all races using some method of fast expand?
3. Does the risk to reward ratio scale up smoothly as you expand to a 3rd/4th?
4. Are there chokes available on the way across the map?
5. Are there open areas available on the way across the map?
6. If there is a gimmick, does the gimmick avoid forcing players into a single strategy or giving one race a particular advantage?

And that is essentially it. Avoid delving further and let the games be PLAYED before deciding that a map is or is not balanced. Adjust features as necessary.

Tal'Darim became popular because it was unique at the time.
Bel'Shir Beach became popular because it was beautiful.

But you know what? Both of those maps have gone through revisions and changes over the course of their tournament life. MotM should be finding and honoring maps that are like these; maps with huge potential that might not be ready for prime time. Maps that when people see them, they say 'Wow that looks cool! I want to play on it!'

Nobody ever says 'Wow, that map looks balanced! I want to play on it!'

In that regard, it could be argued that there are too many maps that look fun/unique/cool, but I DON'T think that perceived balance should be the tie-breaker between which is the MOST fun, the MOST unique, the MOST cool.

Think of it this way:
Who are we designing maps for?
The correct answer is NOT the pros, the answer is THE SPECTATORS. Spectators are the driving force behind this game, and ultimately what is best for the game is not always what is best for the pros, but what is going to keep the spectators interested. I know I was personally excited when the NASL announced that they'd be targeting more interesting maps such as Crossfire. When Bel'Shir Beach was first released I was sure to tune in to some GSL games. Pros hated BOTH of these maps when they came onto the scene due to balance issues, but they helped increase viewership, so they were good for esports.

By worrying about BALANCE too much we are thereby worrying too much about the PROS, when we should be worrying about the spectators.

Leagues will figure out how to strike a balance between satisfying the pros with balanced/well-known maps, and exciting the fans with new and unique maps (such as how NASL and GSL have been doing it).

I have a million more ideas and words to type, but I'll leave this post here and hope that it gets some discussion spinning.