EPTOn March 03 2012 01:07 Samro225am wrote:
good for you games played well so far. i wonder if these games ever went past taking third based?
while i really like - as i already said - what you do here, there are too many problems here. it is elegant and i poike the style, but there are many strange things coming together here in your layout.
while i like what you are trying to do, i have seen many maps being accused to be imba because of fewer problems. here is an image that might help display the significant positional imbalance that favours the player spawning in ccw position.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W0ra4.jpg)
1. imagne having a terran in ccw position (blue) who establishes some control early: the distance to his forward third with a PF seems to be shorter than the distance from the opponent's to pretty much anywhere. i would not make that pf actually, but just the opportunity, or rtaher the distance here speaks for itself.
2. exactly that base (12) is not neutral, because it would be ridiculous to take for the ccw player
3. no matter what race and play situation, the ccw player always has a much more compact base setup (look at 4 vs 4 bases especially).
4. the ccw player expands into the nat and main much easily/quicker. If the cw player wants to take the other nat as his 5th he would have to take a far away third.
5. when cw player (green) does not take mainhugging third he has to take the middle third or far away third which both are easier to attack than ccw player's third.
there is no solution how to change it, there is quite some imbalance here favouring the cw plaayer in any matchup.
oh, and before you blame other maps to be boring: 4spawn rota is kinda condisered imba anyways, so we mapmaker still have to proove in sc2 that rotationalmaps still work fine. A few month ago there were much too many 4spawn maps from the community. none made its way anywhere really and still blizzard considered a map like terminus for the next season. so i do not see why you want to do something interesting but positionally flawed while we still need a solid 4spawn map beside taldarimaltar (not saying that it is fine as it is).
good for you games played well so far. i wonder if these games ever went past taking third based?
while i really like - as i already said - what you do here, there are too many problems here. it is elegant and i poike the style, but there are many strange things coming together here in your layout.
while i like what you are trying to do, i have seen many maps being accused to be imba because of fewer problems. here is an image that might help display the significant positional imbalance that favours the player spawning in ccw position.
1. imagne having a terran in ccw position (blue) who establishes some control early: the distance to his forward third with a PF seems to be shorter than the distance from the opponent's to pretty much anywhere. i would not make that pf actually, but just the opportunity, or rtaher the distance here speaks for itself.
2. exactly that base (12) is not neutral, because it would be ridiculous to take for the ccw player
3. no matter what race and play situation, the ccw player always has a much more compact base setup (look at 4 vs 4 bases especially).
4. the ccw player expands into the nat and main much easily/quicker. If the cw player wants to take the other nat as his 5th he would have to take a far away third.
5. when cw player (green) does not take mainhugging third he has to take the middle third or far away third which both are easier to attack than ccw player's third.
there is no solution how to change it, there is quite some imbalance here favouring the cw plaayer in any matchup.
oh, and before you blame other maps to be boring: 4spawn rota is kinda condisered imba anyways, so we mapmaker still have to proove in sc2 that rotationalmaps still work fine. A few month ago there were much too many 4spawn maps from the community. none made its way anywhere really and still blizzard considered a map like terminus for the next season. so i do not see why you want to do something interesting but positionally flawed while we still need a solid 4spawn map beside taldarimaltar (not saying that it is fine as it is).
I entirely understand your point with the picture you drew, and I agree. However, that is not how players tend to expand on this map. Here are some pictures that show how players tend to expand, which eliminates many of the issues you bring up.
Players on 3 base:
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VY5K2.jpg)
Players take different thirds. Yes, even zerg players will take the third red did since it's close and still away from opponent Where one could argue that red's third is easier to attack than blue's, blue's is easier to harass with siege tanks, infested terran, and warpins from the high ground. Also, attacking either of the thirds puts you far out of position and takes you through tower range. You could go around tower range, but then you're so out of position that doing such is probably not a good idea. This makes the tower important to hold at this stage of the game.
Players on 4 base:
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sr27T.jpg)
Now players have pretty much the same setup and are defending the same amount of fronts and attack paths. Tower is still important, especially to a zerg player in ZvX when X doesn't have their fourth and zerg does. Players on 5 base:
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cQTAH.jpg)
Both players take the other nat as their fifth, and get that main as a "free" 6th. Both players defend same amount of fronts. Tower becomes less important, but still helpful. I'm honestly still learning ropes when it comes to 4 player rotational maps, and by no means am I discrediting your arguments. However, I'm wondering if they still apply when players expand as shown above, or if other issues arise.
