• Log InLog In
• Register

[M] 6m FRB Braxis Delta by Barrin - Page 2

Post a Reply Prev 1 2 All

See.Blue United States2673 Posts April 02 2012 21:37 GMT #21 I have to say, I don't like this map superficially compared to some of your others, Barrin. It feels almost contrived, in that very Shakuras-y way for half-map vs. half-map endgames. I don't know a lot about mapmaking- even some of the discussion above while I can understand I certainly don't belong as a part of so I'll refrain from suggesting things, but this map seems very partitioned almost, and while I'm all for epic lategames, the base layout just doesn't strike me, from a spectator's standpoint as being very engaging. Edit: I hope this is helpful, it's tough to articulate haha.

Nerski United States1095 Posts April 03 2012 00:40 GMT #22 I guess the best way I could exemplify that ZvP would be an issue due to the power of the gold base. Is with pictures as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words". From your braxis replays income level at 50 harversters on 3 base for zerg 2 blue and one gold. Income for zerg on 3 base and 60 drones on korhal compound As you can see the income levels are near identical though on korhal I have more mineral patches available and 10 additional drones. The match up/suppy is irrelevant what matters is the income levels. So what's the point? The point is that compared to the normal 8m2g meta game.... Zerg Player: Has to do less to be in the same situation they would normally be in ZvP on 60 drones and 3 bases economically speaking. Protoss Player: Has to do more to be in the same situation they would normally be in ZvP on 2bases economically speaking. (the 3rd nexus drop) So if the Zerg player is required to do less, and the protoss player is required to do more. This is going to favor the Zerg player in every way shape and form. Thusly making the gold base location an issue moving forward as it's giving the Zerg player an advantage just comparing to the current meta game and map structure. Remove the Gold Base or Move it: Zerg has to take a 4th as an additional step to get to the same point, and the game is even. I think it's pretty clear cut that the gold base is/will be an issue and needs to be addressed. This all just based on statistics which are a very reliable indicator as to how things will play out. I looked at the replays since you mentioned them as proof that it seems fine. Being blunt the level of play in those game is bad, which invalidates them as proof of concept. You have to have cleaner build timings, macro, and decision making to accurately test a maps balance. In case you would argue they do....I can put 2players on Steppes of War one Platinum Zerg and one Gold Terran. The Zerg player could very well win 9 out of 10 at this level of play just by making less bad decisions. We know however at the highest level of play the Terran will win 9 out of 10 games because the map is terribly in favor of T. I think it's worth saying the only reason I'm being a bit of a pain is I like the FRB concept, but if you test it on a map with issues you won't get great results.

Randomaccount#77123 United States5003 Posts April 04 2012 16:41 GMT #23 --- Nuked ---

EatThePath United States3943 Posts April 10 2012 03:02 GMT #24 Where is this promised OP update?? =p

Randomaccount#77123 United States5003 Posts April 10 2012 03:30 GMT #25 --- Nuked ---

Gfire United States1699 Posts April 14 2012 22:45 GMT #26 That sort of tower doodad on the left side backdoor expansion is kinda distracting and gets in the way for me as a spectator. It would be nice if you could swap that out for a shorter doodad. Anyway, I think the proportions on this map are better than I had originally thought when I first saw it. It seems really nice. Great job.

Prev 1 2 All

Please log in or register to reply.