|
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Analyzer: (outdated) Main to Main: + Show Spoiler + Nat to Nat: + Show Spoiler + Openness: + Show Spoiler + Summary: + Show Spoiler +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.
|
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.
|
Can someone upload this to EU please?
|
I'm going to test it tonight Ironman, if one of the games plays out particularly wel im gonna put the replay of it on youtube with commentary
|
On March 26 2012 05:50 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
From a Protoss perspective particualarly I'm wondering if the wall between main and gas 3rd (?) is cliff-walkable and what are your thoughts on making a cliffwalk path available in that area especially with the mini hill nearby
|
In addition to my previous post there appears to be a lack of areas in general where cliffwalk really offers any major advantage. Were you designing this map with minimizing cliffwalk in mind or was that incidental?
|
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.
|
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.
|
can't wait for a tournament with all the 6m maps in the pool. And omg how terrible mapmakers trying to be innovative. (kidding, but i enjoyed those omg stop doing those replies)
|
Has anyone playing the map felt like the third was too hard?
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.
|
Having played this map, I withdraw all concerns. This is awesome, and a huge improvement over 8m2g. It's got all the stuff I liked about BW, and none of the stuff I didn't.
|
Version 0.6 is released!
• 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.
|
|
On March 31 2012 02:16 Duvon wrote: EU publish?
Don't have an EU account.
|
Cross Point now published as 6M FRB Cross Point
Also going up on EU shortly.
|
I very like layout of this map, think its great and balanced, but guys... WE ARE PLAYING SC2, plz stop with this making BW, if you guys want to play brood war, just launch it. I think this would be great map with 8m2g. Sc2 gameplay need to evolve own way, and i think its nice now. 6m1hg trend will only split our community, thats the easiest way to make game less popular/interesting/less new maps. Sorry for going away from subject - map, which is very well done
|
On April 05 2012 06:57 Tosster wrote:I very like layout of this map, think its great and balanced, but guys... WE ARE PLAYING SC2, plz stop with this making BW, if you guys want to play brood war, just launch it. I think this would be great map with 8m2g. Sc2 gameplay need to evolve own way, and i think its nice now. 6m1hg trend will only split our community, thats the easiest way to make game less popular/interesting/less new maps. Sorry for going away from subject - map, which is very well done 
The idea is that BW is a very good game, and so if SC2 is to become a better game it should be more like BW by finding the bits that make BW better than SC2 and applying them. Whether or not this is the way to make SC2 a better game is debatable, but you should not scorn them for trying to improve. (What I mean to say is that the motive is not to make SC2 into broodwar but instead to make SC2 into a better game, and so merely opening Broodwar does nothing to address the issue at hand)
|
tau cross + match point
On April 05 2012 06:57 Tosster wrote:I very like layout of this map, think its great and balanced, but guys... WE ARE PLAYING SC2, plz stop with this making BW, if you guys want to play brood war, just launch it. I think this would be great map with 8m2g. Sc2 gameplay need to evolve own way, and i think its nice now. 6m1hg trend will only split our community, thats the easiest way to make game less popular/interesting/less new maps. Sorry for going away from subject - map, which is very well done  blasphemy
|
I think the first image is broken...
|
On April 05 2012 06:57 Tosster wrote:I very like layout of this map, think its great and balanced, but guys... WE ARE PLAYING SC2, plz stop with this making BW, if you guys want to play brood war, just launch it. I think this would be great map with 8m2g. Sc2 gameplay need to evolve own way, and i think its nice now. 6m1hg trend will only split our community, thats the easiest way to make game less popular/interesting/less new maps. Sorry for going away from subject - map, which is very well done  That is not the point of the FRB initiative.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242
Please read the entirety of this thread before commenting further.
|
On April 05 2012 09:14 Praetorial wrote: I think the first image is broken...
I updated the overviews
|
On April 05 2012 09:39 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2012 06:57 Tosster wrote:I very like layout of this map, think its great and balanced, but guys... WE ARE PLAYING SC2, plz stop with this making BW, if you guys want to play brood war, just launch it. I think this would be great map with 8m2g. Sc2 gameplay need to evolve own way, and i think its nice now. 6m1hg trend will only split our community, thats the easiest way to make game less popular/interesting/less new maps. Sorry for going away from subject - map, which is very well done  That is not the point of the FRB initiative. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242Please read the entirety of this thread before commenting further.
I know i have 0 chances posting my toughts here man, dont worry, and yes, i read it.
|
On April 05 2012 07:16 Rkynick wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2012 06:57 Tosster wrote:I very like layout of this map, think its great and balanced, but guys... WE ARE PLAYING SC2, plz stop with this making BW, if you guys want to play brood war, just launch it. I think this would be great map with 8m2g. Sc2 gameplay need to evolve own way, and i think its nice now. 6m1hg trend will only split our community, thats the easiest way to make game less popular/interesting/less new maps. Sorry for going away from subject - map, which is very well done  The idea is that BW is a very good game, and so if SC2 is to become a better game it should be more like BW by finding the bits that make BW better than SC2 and applying them. Whether or not this is the way to make SC2 a better game is debatable, but you should not scorn them for trying to improve. (What I mean to say is that the motive is not to make SC2 into broodwar but instead to make SC2 into a better game, and so merely opening Broodwar does nothing to address the issue at hand)
The thing is, sc2 units cost was designed for standard layout, so right now 6m1hg is not balanced, bcuz Terran on 1 base (6m1hg) =/= Protoss on 1 base =/= Zerg on 1 base. Same with 2,3,4,5 bases.
|
On April 06 2012 02:59 Tosster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2012 07:16 Rkynick wrote:On April 05 2012 06:57 Tosster wrote:I very like layout of this map, think its great and balanced, but guys... WE ARE PLAYING SC2, plz stop with this making BW, if you guys want to play brood war, just launch it. I think this would be great map with 8m2g. Sc2 gameplay need to evolve own way, and i think its nice now. 6m1hg trend will only split our community, thats the easiest way to make game less popular/interesting/less new maps. Sorry for going away from subject - map, which is very well done  The idea is that BW is a very good game, and so if SC2 is to become a better game it should be more like BW by finding the bits that make BW better than SC2 and applying them. Whether or not this is the way to make SC2 a better game is debatable, but you should not scorn them for trying to improve. (What I mean to say is that the motive is not to make SC2 into broodwar but instead to make SC2 into a better game, and so merely opening Broodwar does nothing to address the issue at hand) The thing is, sc2 units cost was designed for standard layout, so right now 6m1hg is not balanced, bcuz Terran on 1 base (6m1hg) =/= Protoss on 1 base =/= Zerg on 1 base. Same with 2,3,4,5 bases.
You say that you've read the thread but then go on to say that. It's made quite clear in the Barrin's thread that imbalances will spring up when applying 6m1hyg directly into StarCraft II as it is now. The point of getting people to embrace the idea is so that future versions of the game can be balanced around 6m1hyg as the standard. The point of the FRB Grand Tournament is to put the FRB concept to the test at a higher level (Ganzi, Axslav, Illusion, viBE, and many more) to not only showcase what we believe will happen in terms of more open gameplay, but also to see what the current limitations of the concept are. With money on the line, these pro players will likely do whatever they feel gives them the best chance to win, and this will help us take note of any imbalances that DO exist. Based on what is found, the idea can be refined AND FRB mapmakers can begin to take these things into account when designing the architecture of their maps.
|
forget about what blizzard wants/will do/whatever. if the game is better on these maps, which I believe it is, then the change will come. I BELIIEEEVE
this map in particular looks terrific to me
|
Currently working on a 8m2g version of Cross Point. Changing some things and adding aesthetics 
|
On March 26 2012 05:50 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +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. Work which you had no role to play. If the ESV mapmakers feels 6m is a good way to build new innovative maps, then Diamond will work towards incorporating them in the weeklies. After that anything is possible.
|
Hey guys, just an update.
I am creating a 8m2g version of Cross Point, while also overhauling pretty much the entire aesthetical scenery. Here's a couple things I worked on today while streaming
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aIz9O.jpg)
|
Hey IronMan, the OneGoal Project is now looking into the economy issues in SC2. Since our solutions is somewhat similar to 6m, and this map was our first choice for testing, would you interested in sharing the map file for that purpose?
|
|
|
|