|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On April 25 2012 07:40 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 07:11 lazyo wrote:
I just played this map a couple of times because it's currently 1v1 obs map of the day on europe and I have noticed some pretty frustrating things.
First off 1 of the gasses in the main is a lot farther away than the other one (there is actually 1 probe not in the assimilator when mining with 3). This made about a 7-15 gas difference in my build on the first 100 gas mined. There is a similar issue with a lot of maps but as far as I can judge it is the most extreme on this one.
Secondly, it seems like every natural entrance has a different wallin requirement. It varies from 3 gateways to 1 gateway 2 pylons. Now this may be due to walling at a different point but with the doodas it is extremely hard to judge exactly where your wall will be smallest.
All the other issues with the map aside (the close 3rd is not only extremely wide open but it can also be cliff-harrassed, really?) this just makes it infuriating to play. When you notice you just chronoboosted an empty gateway because you still need 10 gas for that stalker or that your wall is not tight it has a big psychological effect. I can re-arrange the geysers a little bit if this is the case, I'll look into it more thoroughly this evening. All natural expansion chokes are 10 tiles wide. They can be blocked by gate gate forge, leaving a one tile wide lane for you to put your zealot. See the spoiler below and turn on the building placement guide in SC2.What you described on the third is intentional. In order to safely hold a third, you need to be active in controlling the middle. The map is designed so that if your game plan is to sit back on 3 bases and turtle, you'll lose to anyone actively controlling the map. This is to entice constant conflict once players secure their natural expansions and 2-base economies. + Show Spoiler [protoss wallins] +
I love you
|
Watched the game between Genius and Puma in DH, and it exactly reflected my thought - too little space for decent sized army enagements. When I first saw this map I thought it's a Kulas Ravine 2.0. The maxed army of Genius and Puma could not move around the map due to overall narrowness. Both of them took turns losing their entire army (Note: maxed T/P army) when they tried to take out the semi-island expansions.
Not a fan of this map at all.
|
On April 25 2012 11:40 usethis2 wrote:
Watched the game between Genius and Puma in DH, and it exactly reflected my thought - too little space for decent sized army enagements. When I first saw this map I thought it's a Kulas Ravine 2.0. The maxed army of Genius and Puma could not move around the map due to overall narrowness. Both of them took turns losing their entire army (Note: maxed T/P army) when they tried to take out the semi-island expansions.
Not a fan of this map at all.
This map doesn't have semi-islands.
|
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured...
|
Netherlands709 Posts
On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured...
Really helpful comment, care to explain why?
And to usethis2, I think that's kind of the point of this map.
ProdiG said himself that this map is meant to be played actively after getting your natural.
That more or less implies that smaller groups of units will be more effective than 200/200 deathballs.
Shouldn't we be glad that someone is trying to make maps that attempt to combat the turtle-into-deathball-into-1A playstyles?
|
On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured...
We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O
|
This is the most absurdly positionally imbalanced map currently used in any pool. I have no idea how it got in, other than the fact that it's really pretty.
Needs to be made cross only, or removed from tournaments ASAP.
|
On April 27 2012 07:33 Syphon8 wrote:
This is the most absurdly positionally imbalanced map currently used in any pool. I have no idea how it got in, other than the fact that it's really pretty.
Needs to be made cross only, or removed from tournaments ASAP.
The amount of space you need to control in order to maintain a 3rd expansion safely is the same whether you take a lowground expansion or highground expansion in either direction.
You don't have to take the lowground expansion every game.
In other words, I disagree 8)
|
On April 27 2012 10:44 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 07:33 Syphon8 wrote:
This is the most absurdly positionally imbalanced map currently used in any pool. I have no idea how it got in, other than the fact that it's really pretty.
Needs to be made cross only, or removed from tournaments ASAP. The amount of space you need to control in order to maintain a 3rd expansion safely is the same whether you take a lowground expansion or highground expansion in either direction. You don't have to take the lowground expansion every game. In other words, I disagree 8)
To control the lowground expansion when it's far back, you need to control the high ground between it and your natural, and a small corridor off to the side of it
To control the highground expansion when it's far back you need to control the area below the elevated stage next to your natural... This lowground is directly exposed to the middle, meaning to ACTUALLY safely control that third you need to control the middle of the map, which is far, more space.
|
On April 28 2012 05:50 Syphon8 wrote:
To control the lowground expansion when it's far back, you need to control the high ground between it and your natural, and a small corridor off to the side of it
To control the highground expansion when it's far back you need to control the area below the elevated stage next to your natural... This lowground is directly exposed to the middle, meaning to ACTUALLY safely control that third you need to control the middle of the map, which is far, more space.
I disagree as well. Either choice for a 3rd requires you to push out to the middle, the high ground one just because of its position, the low ground one because you can harass it from the high ground base. Either way, you need to move out and secure your share of map space to successfully hold three bases, making turtling very difficult.
|
On April 28 2012 05:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:50 Syphon8 wrote:
To control the lowground expansion when it's far back, you need to control the high ground between it and your natural, and a small corridor off to the side of it
To control the highground expansion when it's far back you need to control the area below the elevated stage next to your natural... This lowground is directly exposed to the middle, meaning to ACTUALLY safely control that third you need to control the middle of the map, which is far, more space. I disagree as well. Either choice for a 3rd requires you to push out to the middle, the high ground one just because of its position, the low ground one because you can harass it from the high ground base. Either way, you need to move out and secure your share of map space to successfully hold three bases, making turtling very difficult.
It's more difficult to take and hold the high ground 3rd, significantly so in certain matchups. I think more importantly the 3rd is a little too hard in general, especially the high ground 3rd. This doesn't mean they won't be taken and defended, but it creates much larger windows for aggressive play to end in a blowout. The only recourse you have facing this map-specific metagame is to build up on 2 bases, which it has been our mapmaking mission to deter since the game came out.
|
On April 26 2012 02:37 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured... We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O
Cloud Kingdom? Korhal Compound? Which "one" map were you talking about?
|
On April 28 2012 09:07 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 02:37 Diamond wrote:On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured... We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O Cloud Kingdom? Korhal Compound? Which "one" map were you talking about?
How are these maps toss favoured? On neither one of these maps you can easily turtle-until deathball, on neither of these maps you have a super-safe natural like on shakuras.
|
Calm down, he just wants to know which map Diamond is talking about.
You don't want to turn the "ESV Vicious" map thread into a discussion about CK and KC, do you?
|
On April 28 2012 23:59 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 09:07 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 26 2012 02:37 Diamond wrote:On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured... We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O Cloud Kingdom? Korhal Compound? Which "one" map were you talking about? How are these maps toss favoured? On neither one of these maps you can easily turtle-until deathball, on neither of these maps you have a super-safe natural like on shakuras.
Statistically speaking, both maps are toss favoured (70% pvt CKLE, 62% pvz KCLE)
|
On April 25 2012 17:14 Shkudde wrote:
And to usethis2, I think that's kind of the point of this map.
ProdiG said himself that this map is meant to be played actively after getting your natural.
That more or less implies that smaller groups of units will be more effective than 200/200 deathballs.
Shouldn't we be glad that someone is trying to make maps that attempt to combat the turtle-into-deathball-into-1A playstyles?
But in order to encourage small army engagements, the map needs to be less turtle-friendly. But as it is, that doesn't seem to be the case. So the map encourages ball-ball battles yet there isn't enough room for that. I don't think they succeeded in the stated goal.
|
On April 29 2012 15:28 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 17:14 Shkudde wrote:
And to usethis2, I think that's kind of the point of this map.
ProdiG said himself that this map is meant to be played actively after getting your natural.
That more or less implies that smaller groups of units will be more effective than 200/200 deathballs.
Shouldn't we be glad that someone is trying to make maps that attempt to combat the turtle-into-deathball-into-1A playstyles?
But in order to encourage small army engagements, the map needs to be less turtle-friendly. But as it is, that doesn't seem to be the case. So the map encourages ball-ball battles yet there isn't enough room for that. I don't think they succeeded in the stated goal.
Can you elaborate a little bit? What you said here is counter-intuitive - the map needs to be less turtle-friendly and there aren't enough room for deathball battles (which would imply that instead players need to take smaller engagements throughout the game). I'm not sure I follow here
|
|
|
Yeah, here it shows that building placement is fine, prodiG. But when I played on it, it had the issue where you can't wall off as Terran that I showed you on Twitter. :/
|
On May 01 2012 13:47 eXeKryos wrote:
Yeah, here it shows that building placement is fine, prodiG. But when I played on it, it had the issue where you can't wall off as Terran that I showed you on Twitter. :/
For the sake of having the information here in the TL thread that I gave you on Twitter
Kryos and I had a quick twitter discussion about this - he played the Dreamhack ESV Vicious version which is out-of-date, does not contain the fix and is not within my ability to change or manipulate in any way.
The latest and most up-to-date version of ANY ESV map will always be the version uploaded by the account ESVMaps with solely an ESV tag and Vicious is no exception. These are the versions the map team endorses as this is what we have control over.
We do not have access to the Dreamhack maps account and I personally don't handle the talks with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cQyw7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v5uQB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lxSQV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2FzyX.jpg)
