I was a little skeptical at first, but now I'm a huge fan of this map. I have had some epic games on ladder already. Mech is very fun and seems very powerful on this map. I know you put tons of work into this. Thank you!

Kaesebrot

Germany128 Posts

April 25 2012 16:05 GMT

#185

I get this map all the time on the ladder. Its great for proxy marauder in tvt. But too bad the water got removed -_-

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 10 2012 09:09 GMT

#186

Ohana in Proleague Season 2!

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=336363

Sumadin

Denmark588 Posts

May 10 2012 13:10 GMT

#187

Ladder versions? Does that mean no depots and close spawn antiga and entombed? We need to know more. Personally i would love a tournement to take that step, but as a startup for proleage? Well this is going to be intresting.

Gl!tch

United States573 Posts

May 10 2012 14:17 GMT

#188

Now that this thread popped up again, i'm curious. Does Blizzard plan on making small changes to maps during season changes? and if so would they let you? Now that the map has had so much exposure and testing i'm sure you have some statistics that you could use to further balance it (not that it isn't balanced, I personally find PvP PvZ and PvT to be pretty 50/50 on this map, which is all I can speak for).

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 10 2012 18:02 GMT

#189

On May 10 2012 22:10 Sumadin wrote:
Ladder versions? Does that mean no depots and close spawn antiga and entombed?

LE - ladder edition, so yes, that means no depot I'm afraid, unless they're lying to us

On May 10 2012 23:17 Gl!tch wrote:
Now that this thread popped up again, i'm curious. Does Blizzard plan on making small changes to maps during season changes? and if so would they let you? Now that the map has had so much exposure and testing i'm sure you have some statistics that you could use to further balance it (not that it isn't balanced, I personally find PvP PvZ and PvT to be pretty 50/50 on this map, which is all I can speak for).

So far the statistics for Ohana are:

TvZ: 50-37 (57.5%) | ZvP: 33-36 (47.8%) | PvT: 32-29 (52.5%)

Blizzard did mention to one of the other mappers on ESV (monitor/superouman) that changes would be allowed between seasons, but we don't know for sure when that's available to us or if they're really going to change it. The fact that they mentioned it gives a good chance.

As far as balancing Ohana, this is a very cautious thing I have to do, as now I can kind of understand blizzard when they balance the game. If there was anything I would consider changing, it would be to remove the destructible rocks at the 4ths, since they serve more as an offensive tool and serve no defensive purposes whatsoever, which explains why players (zergs especially), break them down early enough to avoid getting choked up there.

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

May 10 2012 18:14 GMT

#190

Well, while Zergs have had trouble on this map, they are also being buffed with the overlord speed and queen range now. It's hard to say what big of an effect that will have, but I think it's difficult to pinpoint any balance changes to be made now.

However, I fully support removal of the rocks at the fourth. I think generally they emphasize 3-base play too much. You've said that a concept in Ohana is sort of an easy third base and more difficult fourth, but I'm not a big fan of that, as it seems like it's playing to the weaknesses of SC2. The game is already designed in a way that it has a bit of a 3-base cap issue, and I don't really like how Ohana emphasizes that, it's not great for gameplay and makes it hard for Zerg. The only downside to making the fourth a bit easier, that I can see, would be problems with players taking all four bases quite quickly and then running out of bases, seeing as there's only five per player. I don't think that's too big of a deal, though.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

May 10 2012 18:33 GMT

#191

On May 11 2012 03:14 Gfire wrote:
Well, while Zergs have had trouble on this map, they are also being buffed with the overlord speed and queen range now. It's hard to say what big of an effect that will have, but I think it's difficult to pinpoint any balance changes to be made now.

However, I fully support removal of the rocks at the fourth. I think generally they emphasize 3-base play too much. You've said that a concept in Ohana is sort of an easy third base and more difficult fourth, but I'm not a big fan of that, as it seems like it's playing to the weaknesses of SC2. The game is already designed in a way that it has a bit of a 3-base cap issue, and I don't really like how Ohana emphasizes that, it's not great for gameplay and makes it hard for Zerg. The only downside to making the fourth a bit easier, that I can see, would be problems with players taking all four bases quite quickly and then running out of bases, seeing as there's only five per player. I don't think that's too big of a deal, though.

This does not remove the prime purpose of this map's concept design, which is designed to create aggressive macro play. Taking three bases will always be easy. You will always have to fight over your 4th and/or 5th bases to maintain a steady economic advantage over your opponent. On most maps, you can sit back on 5 or 6 bases, while your opponent is on 3 or 4. That's a compromise. On Ohana, you have to be aggressive to come out on top, and that's produced a lot of great games, even TvZ!

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

May 10 2012 19:28 GMT

#192

Oh yeah, I really like how you have to fight for a fourth base. It's a nice change of pace. I think the rocks make it harder to take and defend, while it's forward position makes it easy to assault for the opponent. I guess, potentially, the rocks might discourage players from taking it in the first place, which actually discourages fighting. I could be wrong, but removing the rocks might increase both aggression and macro play.