|
6M FRB Cross Point 1.0
by IronManSC
[NA] [EU]
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uJ4B7.jpg)
Angled Overview: + Show Spoiler +
Introduction
At first I was skeptical of the 6m1hyg proposal by Barrin. I had mentioned on Mappers Episode 1 that I liked the idea and it wouldn't hurt to try, but I knew it would take a lot of commitment, dedication, and effort --- not just personally but from the community as a whole. Together we can show blizzard that this is the type of change we not only want, but that this game needs.
I was working on a new, standard sc2 map (8m2g) and decided to surrender it to Barrin's proposal out of my own free will. I took the map and made it larger, more open, and added more bases. It's not super detailed, but the lighting is nice and the textures help your units stand out more. I've run around 15 test games before posting this map thread, and so far it feels very bw-like and shows promise 
I give you.... 6M FRB Cross Point!
Map Analysis & a Master PvZ Match:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Map Details:
Players: 2
Playable Size: 136x160
XT: 2
Bases: 14
Resources: Blue mineral patches contain 2000 resources. High Yield Gas Geysers contain 5000
Screenshots:
Coming soon!
Analyzer: (outdated)
Main to Main: + Show Spoiler +
Nat to Nat: + Show Spoiler +
Openness: + Show Spoiler +
Summary: + Show Spoiler +
Notable Replays:
Master PvZ - http://drop.sc/141542
|
Honestly, I think that these maps need to stop being so popular in the scene atm, especially in the forum. Not because it's a bad concept (it is), but because with the dominance of 6m1hyg maps, we are getting less and less 'real' maps. And Blizzard will NEVER change SC2 to this system (inb4, "but email", they said the game was balanced around 8m2g, then waffled around a bit).
I'm really sad to not see legit maps coming out of NA map makers anymore. Sigh.
As for the general outlay of the map, I find it pretty alright. The gold foreword expo is a terrible idea, but besides that it seems like a fairly unique map. I would move the 'corner' base (next to the gold) closer to the nat.
|
|
|
On March 26 2012 05:42 Barrin wrote:...That's right mapmakers. We can boycott 8m2g maps and force FRB to happen that way!!! Mapmakers unite! -- good map, glad to have it in pool. Nothing very innovative, pretty generic, but very solid, low CS. I wanted a map just like this in pool :D 
Knowing Blizzard, you think that making only maps like this will help? I would think it's more likely that blizz will start making maps again. So much for all the work ESV et al. did to get into the ladder.
|
|
|
This map reminds me a lot of Bel'Shir Beach, especially in terms of the layout of the first four bases.
Still different enough to be unique though, with the ramp between the main and nat, and the different layout of the middle bases.
|
Alabaster, have you played these maps? They are a lot of fun.
Even if it doesn't become standard sc2 it is a cool thing to be able to play. Brought me out of the woodwork after 2 seasons of not laddering.
|
Map Analysis added to the OP under introduction. There are 4 parts. Thank you Senex!
Enjoy!
|
I'd like if there were more ways to move around the map. I think part of the idea of the 6m 1hyg is that it forces smaller army movements, but the map needs to have dynamic pathing to pull that off. This map's pathing is very generic and standard. It works fine, but it's not anything new. To me it comes across as a mediocre 8m 2g map that was made into a 6m 1hyg.
Really I just think that some of the bases are too close which makes the pathing too straightforward. If you think about it in gravity terms, some sections of the map have too high gravity because there are a lot of bases in a row. If you just expand clockwise for the first five bases then you get a really stable economy with five bases centered around a watch tower. Reaaaally heavy. Largely it's just the fourth base that bothers me. Even just cutting out the pathway between the third and fourth helps tremendously, but the fourth is still very awkward no matter how you look at it.
|
This map is much deeper than it appears to be at first glance.
My only feeling here is that the base directly north/south (lowerspawn/upperspawn respectively) of the main might be too hard to defend, but then again I don't really have a good feel for 6m yet. Maybe widen the choke between the gold and that base.
Looks well-rounded though.
|
I think what Barrin's forgetting is that player's (in particular progamers) would have to completely relearn the games early to mid stages due to timings being completely f----d up because of the differences in incomes vs. the current standard.
|
On March 26 2012 09:29 lost_artz wrote:
I think what Barrin's forgetting is that player's (in particular progamers) would have to completely relearn the games early to mid stages due to timings being completely f----d up because of the differences in incomes vs. the current standard.
The 6m1hyg design wouldn't be in effect until HotS (if blizzard does it). With HotS comes not only a separate ladder, but new units, and with new units comes a completely newly designed metagame, and with a newly designed metagame could possibly be FRB.
|
On March 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote:
Alabaster, have you played these maps? They are a lot of fun.
Even if it doesn't become standard sc2 it is a cool thing to be able to play. Brought me out of the woodwork after 2 seasons of not laddering.
I have, at at the level I play (top masters), they're not. However, asides from the enjoyable nature of them, or the viability, what bothers me most is how they are taking over 'normal' or 'real' maps, seeing as there is simply no way that they will ever be implemented. Their viability is irrelevant in a game that has been created around 8m2g. Blizzard will waffle around saying 'no' (like they always do), and simply never implement them.
I would like to see mappers focus more on maps that can be played viably and competitively, and set these aside, or to a back-burner. Either that, or get pros to test-play these maps and get honest feedback from people that matter (because yours or my opinion is irrelevant next to Ret's or Naniwa's). Hell, Morrow makes maps himself, why doesn't someone talk to him about this?
//Sorry for straying off topic, I won't make anymore comments about the state of the maps, and will focus on analysis of this map in particular. If you have anymore questions about my opinion on the mineral outlay of maps, please PM me so we don't ruin this thread//
|
On March 26 2012 10:11 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote:
Alabaster, have you played these maps? They are a lot of fun.
Even if it doesn't become standard sc2 it is a cool thing to be able to play. Brought me out of the woodwork after 2 seasons of not laddering. I have, at at the level I play (top masters), they're not. However, asides from the enjoyable nature of them, or the viability, what bothers me most is how they are taking over 'normal' or 'real' maps, seeing as there is simply no way that they will ever be implemented. Their viability is irrelevant in a game that has been created around 8m2g. Blizzard will waffle around saying 'no' (like they always do), and simply never implement them. I would like to see mappers focus more on maps that can be played viably and competitively, and set these aside, or to a back-burner. Either that, or get pros to test-play these maps and get honest feedback from people that matter (because yours or my opinion is irrelevant next to Ret's or Naniwa's). Hell, Morrow makes maps himself, why doesn't someone talk to him about this? //Sorry for straying off topic, I won't make anymore comments about the state of the maps, and will focus on analysis of this map in particular. If you have anymore questions about my opinion on the mineral outlay of maps, please PM me so we don't ruin this thread//
Instead of just saying something isn't, and leaving it at that... why don't you give us some info with your master level skill about why these maps aren't fun? Please include the amount of games you've played on said maps, along with the match ups. If you're not willing to provide any of this, then stop complaining until you decide you want to provide said information. Your posts on this map in particular are as annoying as the people who give very general tips about a player's performance. "You need to macro better" "You need to harass more" "You need to build more workers." These are great tips on the general level, but the specifics would be more helpful. "You need to macro better BY __________ BECAUSE __________." You need to harass more BY ___________ BECAUSE __________" etc.
When critiquing another musician's music, it would be silly of me to say "You need to use more accidentals" or "You need more dynamics in your songs" Both of these could be very valuable pieces of information, but if I told someone that, they would just look at me like I was an idiot, because throwing in random accidentals or random dynamics doesn't make a song better. But telling them "If you had an accidental here, you would get a minor chord, making the song flow a little better in this particular section" or "If you were quieter on this part, and let it build up to this measure, then the song will feel more dynamic."
|
On March 26 2012 10:11 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote:
Alabaster, have you played these maps? They are a lot of fun.
Even if it doesn't become standard sc2 it is a cool thing to be able to play. Brought me out of the woodwork after 2 seasons of not laddering. I have, at at the level I play (top masters), they're not. However, asides from the enjoyable nature of them, or the viability, what bothers me most is how they are taking over 'normal' or 'real' maps, seeing as there is simply no way that they will ever be implemented. Their viability is irrelevant in a game that has been created around 8m2g. Blizzard will waffle around saying 'no' (like they always do), and simply never implement them. I would like to see mappers focus more on maps that can be played viably and competitively, and set these aside, or to a back-burner. Either that, or get pros to test-play these maps and get honest feedback from people that matter (because yours or my opinion is irrelevant next to Ret's or Naniwa's). Hell, Morrow makes maps himself, why doesn't someone talk to him about this? //Sorry for straying off topic, I won't make anymore comments about the state of the maps, and will focus on analysis of this map in particular. If you have anymore questions about my opinion on the mineral outlay of maps, please PM me so we don't ruin this thread//
I hope you realize how rediculous you sound saying things like "what bothers me is how they are taking over 'normal' or 'real' maps" -- it has been eight (8) days since Barrin made his Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 thread. I highly doubt we've missed out on the next GSL or ladder map in that time.
And for all you know, this or any of the other new FRB maps *will be* used in the GSL. If it's all about the money, and people are going to pay to see these new maps......
|
I mean, I was high masters as well before I stopped laddering... We don't even know basic openings for these maps yet, so I don't know how you can say they aren't fun. I feel confident in saying you have not played anything approaching a "top masters" level game on these maps. You may have good mechanics but the timings are totally unknown.
|
On March 26 2012 11:02 sam!zdat wrote:
I mean, I was high masters as well before I stopped laddering... We don't even know basic openings for these maps yet, so I don't know how you can say they aren't fun. I feel confident in saying you have not played anything approaching a "top masters" level game on these maps. You may have good mechanics but the timings are totally unknown.
Agreed. Fun is subjective in this case too imo, so some people will enjoy it and others won't.
I actually enjoy 8m2g more right now because I know builds and I can really practice my skill. In 6m maps I am really just fucking around and trying my hardest, but my builds don't work perfectly.
To add to the "Is this a good idea" discussion- yes, I believe it is. The community is really starting to get behind it (see: Battle.net thread, TL thread, Mappers show, etc.). It isn't out of our reach in my opinion. There isn't really anything wrong with some mapmakers choosing to experiment with 6m maps either, especially because it's fun and could help the design of 8m maps. Blizzard has already acknowledged the idea, and changing over in HotS would make complete sense to me. Alabaster is right that the next step is to get some professional games and opinions- I happen to know there are already some plans in the works.
Cross Point is definitely my favorite 6m map right now. It's a little bit standard, but has an incredible layout and great gameplay. It does a good job of making unique areas and paths similar to BW. It'd work really well with some changes as a 8m map too- cannot wait until Ironman converts it over.
|
I was obsing earlier and noticed that the mineral patches only have 1500 per node. The standard under 6m is "supposed" to be 2000 per node, with 5000 per high yield gas.
Other than that, I really enjoy the map so far.
|
Hah, this is funny. IronmanSC, I'm calling you out on this. At 52:09 in Mappers Episode 1 you agree with the notion of having at the very least the main bases equipped with two gas geysers, yet I'm noticing something funny looking at your map. In case you forgot, you left something important out. What the hell, what gives man? I don't understand why you would make an argument saying that two geysers are necessary for this game and then not follow through with your own map. Is this just for experimental purposes? Even then, you're not even living up to your own opinions and this is just plain hypocritical. I hate to be dogging map makers who are interested in promoting the 6m map concept, but I'm a firm believer that two geysers are a must for SC2 at least for the main if nothing else. I'm just a bit put off that you make a sound argument in favor of this in the video then contradict yourself.
Hey, if players who are into these maps can play fine with one gas and for whatever reason prefer it over two then that's great; I just don't see that as a good idea and I thought you felt the same. Like you said, it worked in Brood War but Starcraft 2 is a different game. 'Nuff said.
|
On March 26 2012 16:58 Areon wrote:
Hah, this is funny. IronmanSC, I'm calling you out on this. At 52:09 in Mappers Episode 1 you agree with the notion of having at the very least the main bases equipped with two gas geysers, yet I'm noticing something funny looking at your map. In case you forgot, you left something important out. What the hell, what gives man? I don't understand why you would make an argument saying that two geysers are necessary for this game and then not follow through with your own map. Is this just for experimental purposes? Even then, you're not even living up to your own opinions and this is just plain hypocritical. I hate to be dogging map makers who are interested in promoting the 6m map concept, but I'm a firm believer that two geysers are a must for SC2 at least for the main if nothing else. I'm just a bit put off that you make a sound argument in favor of this in the video then contradict yourself.
Hey, if players who are into these maps can play fine with one gas and for whatever reason prefer it over two then that's great; I just don't see that as a good idea and I thought you felt the same. Like you said, it worked in Brood War but Starcraft 2 is a different game. 'Nuff said.
Yes, I did mention that having 2 gas would, or should be "necessary" in sc2 with this type of change. However, this is for experimental purposes. Before testing these games, or even making the map, I gave a personal preference that 2 gas geysers in the main would feel required. As I was experimenting with 1hyg on Cross Point, I didn't see any problems with any race only being on 1 gas. It appeared to be working fine on the other maps that were already published for 6M, so I decided to at least start from there and see how it goes anyway.
As previously said, it is experimental, and on wednesday we're going to have Barrin on our mapper show and I'm actually going to bring up the possibility of 6m2g in the mains and see if that is worth trying, since he is the hardcore analyzer in all of this and knows his math.
If I give a opinion or preference before I actually get involved in it, it is most definitely subject to change. If I were to test it, then say it should have 2 gas, but never change it, then we've got a problem. Don't get too hardcore on me buddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OnlVL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k5o4n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bdvVp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MsCS9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CO1pT.jpg)
