EPTAbout this map, the gold only bases concerns me. Changing from 8m to 6m is already favoring terrans more due to the nature of mules and with gold only bases it starts adding up. Not to mention the elavated center which makes me worry.
[M] 6M FRB Cross Point - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
About this map, the gold only bases concerns me. Changing from 8m to 6m is already favoring terrans more due to the nature of mules and with gold only bases it starts adding up. Not to mention the elavated center which makes me worry. | ||
|
Highpriest
3 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16117 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On March 26 2012 05:50 DYEAlabaster wrote: 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. They added the ESV maps in the first place because that's what the community wanted, and now casuals are mostly gone meaning we're "the community". On March 26 2012 21:28 Sumadin wrote: I would be abit careful with trying to force blizzards hand on this. They generally know their limits and have the tools to determen if any suggestion is possible, reasonable or downright mad. About this map, the gold only bases concerns me. Changing from 8m to 6m is already favoring terrans more due to the nature of mules and with gold only bases it starts adding up. Not to mention the elavated center which makes me worry. Blizz seems to be opposed to making FRPB mains, since it'd mess up the game balance, but warm to 6m expoes if the community likes it. I don't know how much 6m1hyg actually favors Terran, because Terrans have the best mineral dumps. There doesn't seem to be much interesting about the map but the 6m thing, but I have some thoughts/questions about that. 1. Your analysis videos pronounces "frpb" as "Furby". Can we all agree that is the best idea? 2. On "Mappers", the subject of 6m1hyg being harder to scout came up, since there's only one gas. What made you decide this wasn't an issue, or are you just deciding to actually test that theory? 3. Have you experimented with 8m2g mains and 6m1hyg expoes? I know Barrin thinks this encourages one-basing, but I'm not entirely sure on that, because one-basing isn't very good nowadays. 4. Do you think Furby maps are already better than non-Furby maps, or that they need a bit of tweaking compared to regular maps to really work. How would you rate this experiment? 5. Bases mine out much faster in SC2 than in BW. Have bases mining out really fast been a concern? I feel like contains would be much scarier in Furby SC2 than in BW, and contains were already scary in BW. Bug, feature, or not a problem? | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
All minerals (blue and gold patches) have had their resource value increased from 1500 to 2000. All gas geysers have had their resource value increased from 2500 to 5000. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:14 IronManSC wrote: 0.4 Released! All minerals (blue and gold patches) have had their resource value increased from 1500 to 2000. All gas geysers have had their resource value increased from 2500 to 5000. That was an extremely fast answer to question 5 :D | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 27 2012 15:14 Ribbon wrote: 2. On "Mappers", the subject of 6m1hyg being harder to scout came up, since there's only one gas. What made you decide this wasn't an issue, or are you just deciding to actually test that theory? As protoss, I scout terran with a quick stalker to see what he is building. Zerg is the same to scout as before, basically, you just look for timings of hatch/pool/gas. PvP is a total mystery at the moment, so that may be an issue, but then again it's pvp and scouting is just... an issue. Because you saturate your base so quickly, you sometimes end up cutting probes briefly while you are scouting and you get to make some quick tech decisions if you want (you also have a lot more gas because of the hyg). The way the money works as protoss, you end up only spending one chrono on probes and so when you scout your opponent you have a full tank of gas and can react. Additionally, FE builds are fairly good because the rush distances are so long, so if he is not clearly FE you can raise some alarm bells. In some weird ways like that, 6m feels to me actually more reactive in the early game and less coin flippy. Few people are doing cheeses, though. Come to channel 7m and cheese me! 3. Have you experimented with 8m2g mains and 6m1hyg expoes? I know Barrin thinks this encourages one-basing, but I'm not entirely sure on that, because one-basing isn't very good nowadays. If you were going to do something like this, my feeling would be 7m2g mains and 6m1hyg expos. I think 8m would be too much and would make FE too susceptible to cheese. However, right now I think that 1 base pressure builds into expand are very good (which is good, right? Because it encourages interaction on the map) so maybe this would not be an issue. 4. Do you think Furby maps are already better than non-Furby maps, or that they need a bit of tweaking compared to regular maps to really work. How would you rate this experiment? The best thing about this is the way that the expansion rhythm of 6m lets the maps dictate game flow. These maps are a lot of fun to play on and they feel very distinct from one another. It's not because 8m maps are bad, but because the game doesn't encourage players to take more than 3 bases before they are maxed, and so you are never spread out over as many expansions (and can therefore be harassed at those expansions, don't have to account for attacks along alternate routes toward those expansions, etc.). These maps are not perfect but once there is a metagame and they can make maps for THAT, they will be great. 5. Bases mine out much faster in SC2 than in BW. Have bases mining out really fast been a concern? I feel like contains would be much scarier in Furby SC2 than in BW, and contains were already scary in BW. Bug, feature, or not a problem? FEATURE. Contain play is awesome. Yes it is strong in 6m. Bases do not feel like they mine out particularly fast, but you cannot make use of probe production unless you expand rapidly. The goal of the early game is to get to four mining bases without stopping probe production (besides a cut at the beginning for some builds) and without having a lot of oversaturation of your minerals. If your opponent has map control and can take a third/fourth while you cannot, you will be unable to make use of your probes and will fall behind. edit: gas did feel like it mined out too fast, that's good. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
Ribbon wrote:1. Your analysis videos pronounces "frpb" as "Furby". Can we all agree that is the best idea? I think it's safe to say that it's being tested a tiny bit and played with, and so far after the hardcore analysis and minor adjustments (based on barrin's calculations), I can gladly say that so far it is a good experiment and the gameplay overall is much more diverse. There is nothing wrong with continuing to progress in its potential. Ribbon wrote:2. On "Mappers", the subject of 6m1hyg being harder to scout came up, since there's only one gas. What made you decide this wasn't an issue, or are you just deciding to actually test that theory? As much as looking at obvious things in the current 8m2g setups, I figure I would go ahead and start with a 6m1hyg in the main bases because everyone else was doing it and there wasn't really a problem uproaring about it. Ribbon wrote:3. Have you experimented with 8m2g mains and 6m1hyg expoes? I know Barrin thinks this encourages one-basing, but I'm not entirely sure on that, because one-basing isn't very good nowadays. I have yes. I've even had a conversation with Barrin about the different options of mineral and gas counts in each base. Since I am not the one that analyzes this type of stuff, I trust his conclusions to say that 6m1hyg (2000 resource for minerals, and 5000 resource for gas) is a good place to start with FRB. Ribbon wrote:4. Do you think Furby maps are already better than non-Furby maps, or that they need a bit of tweaking compared to regular maps to really work. How would you rate this experiment? I can't conclude if they're better but they have, so far, produced more diverse gameplay. For the first time in a long time I am seeing just about ever master protoss player (and even terrans) grab 4-5 bases in the midst of so many skirmishes, scouting, and harassing going on. It's definitely giving a new look and feel to how the game flows and plays out. However this has only been in testing for a few days so it's too early to say if FRB maps are better than 8m2g maps. Balance-wise we don't know... gameplay-wise most definitely. And believe me, I was skeptical to how gameplay would pan out, and it shocked me. Ribbon wrote:5. Bases mine out much faster in SC2 than in BW. Have bases mining out really fast been a concern? I feel like contains would be much scarier in Furby SC2 than in BW, and contains were already scary in BW. Bug, feature, or not a problem? The bases don't mine out faster (at least i dont think so) because we did the math and the 6m1hyg resources were adjusted to have the same value as 8m2g, but now you have less workers to work with which is the main difference. Also, I don't know about contains, so I wont answer that yet. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On March 26 2012 05:38 DYEAlabaster wrote: 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. Barrin had some great arguments, I gotta say. And imbalance will not occur either. I really like the bright look of this map, no dark textures. The gold placement is very interesting as well. Would love to see how pros would play on it. | ||
|
Sc2eleazar
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
Sc2eleazar
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
• 1 gold mineral patch from each gold base was removed • Destructible rocks added on the primary, middle ground ramp that leads the the high ground. This ensures a little more safety when traveling from your natural to your third • The natural ramp was moved 1-ramp closer to the third. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 28 2012 06:12 IronManSC wrote: 0.5 is released • 1 gold mineral patch from each gold base was removed • Destructible rocks added on the primary, middle ground ramp that leads the the high ground. This ensures a little more safety when traveling from your natural to your third • The natural ramp was moved 1-ramp closer to the third. Approve, obv.  Can't wait to try it out. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
| ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
To me it seems like the third is about as hard to take as a standard 8m2g map is to take. It adds one more choke that looks wallable with around 4 gateways. But a player is not going to have near the resources to defend the third as he/she does on a 8m2g map. I feel like the choke between the third and fourth needs to be smaller, or even completely removed. Part of that comes from the fact that I think bases need to be a little easier to take in 6m1hyg maps because people have to expand much faster with fewer resources gained per base. A protoss player can't afford to make a third base while also trying to wall the choke between the fourth and third, unless the choke is much smaller. Also, I think chokes in general can be a little (very little, can't make ffs op) smaller because armies will generally be a little smaller and/or split up into small hit squads. Another quick note about the third: the distance the defender has to go from defending the choke into the natural (army down between ramps to nat and third) to defending the choke between their third/fourth is hardly any smaller than the distance the attacker has to go to poke down the ramp with the rocks (moving to natural) or poke into the third through the choke between the third and fourth. Because of that, the third is harder to hold than normal because the attacker can harass you really easily. I like some parts of the map, but as I mentioned in the first post it doesn't sit quite right with me. Hopefully this post gives you a clearer idea of what I don't like about the map... I was pretty vague and general in the first post I guess. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
• Fog density reduced • Foliage bugs fixed • Gold bases replaced with standard 6m1hyg bases. The gold bases were causing problems where Zerg would take it as a quick natural when protoss went for a FFE. | ||
|
Duvon
Sweden2360 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On March 31 2012 02:16 Duvon wrote: EU publish? Don't have an EU account. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
Also going up on EU shortly. | ||
| ||
