EPT[M] 6m FRB Braxis Delta by Barrin
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
eXigent.
Canada2419 Posts
| ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
I think this map could benefit a lot from removing some expansions and changing their vulnerabilities. The problem I have is that taking some bases essentially gives you a "free" base that is almost invulnerable. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7Uhtq.jpg) Compared to Cloud Kingdom: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U9tM7.jpg) Note: The fourth does make the third somewhat free. Other than that though, the expansions are spread out enough so that it is easy to catch the opponent out of position. Imo not the case on Braxis Delta. I would suggest making some changes like this so it is less turtle and there is more harass/multi-prong aggression potential. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eNaBI.jpg) Small adjustments: -Spread out corner bases -move the 2gas base closer to the natural, remove min only or make it 4 minerals -move the lowground corner base closer -make the highground corner base more vulnerable | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On April 02 2012 07:21 IronManSC wrote: This is suffering the same deal that was a problem on Cross Point. A protoss FFE, zerg takes gold as nat or 3rd = win. This might not be the case because protoss can take a safe inbase expo and the third is a lot easier than Cross Point. I don't think it warrants any changes yet. If you find that zerg taking the gold is indeed overpowered like Cross Point, I suggest simply adding rocks to the gold to prevent taking it too early against a forge FE. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Kmatt
United States1019 Posts
By the way, do you want me to upload the replays of the test games we did on here last night? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Kmatt
United States1019 Posts
REPLAYS Barrin [Z] vs Kmatt [Z] Barrin [Z] vs Kmatt [Z] Barrin [P] vs Kmatt [Z] Barrin [P] vs Kmatt [Z] Barrin [P] vs Kmatt [Z] Barrin [T] vs ZenoAkoop [Z] Barrin [T] vs Kmatt [Z] Barrin [T] vs ZenoAkoop [Z] JCITWTTTL (Cho) [Z] vs ChewToy [P] Kmatt [Z] vs SpaceSteak [T] Kmatt [Z] vs Kallo [T] | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On April 02 2012 08:41 Barrin wrote: What monitor said. The ease of taking a 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc, but particularly third and to a less extent fourth) is worlds apart, in such a way that shouldn't hurt Protoss nearly as much. Are you kidding me? It is super easy to take because it's way more hidden and is an easy 3rd. Because it's that close, you should add the rocks anyways. On Cross Point, the gold was in the center of the map and zergs still took it as their nat/3rd which became a problem, but somehow it's not an issue on a tucked away gold on your own map because it's "worlds apart?" ...it's tucked away around the corner of your natural barrin. | ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/spatial/example3.jpg) 1) 'Natural' base removed: This done because otherwise defending the initial 3 bases is fairly 'easy' which puts you on an income level greater then 2 bases in 8m 2g, which essentially defeats the whole purpose of 6m1hyg. Additionally this base is extremely vulnerable to fast 1 base medivac / tank pushes (see lost temple) because the ground distance from the ground to the cliff for the defender is just to large. Which imbalances the map in favor of Terran. Illustration in spoiler. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/spatial/exampleT_M.jpg) 2) Gold bases at minimum moved/if not removed: Z v P as a zerg player I'd take the gold as my third versus any non 1 basing protoss. Essentially giving me a huge advantage. I tested this, and with my first 2 queens initial tumor, I need only move it once and connect the main, the remaining 'natural', and the gold base. Illustration in spoiler as well. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/spatial/example2.jpg) Tested how long it would take to max out, with no upgrades on three base it took 10.5 minutes to max out on Z/R with only zergling speed upgraded on gas. Took me 13 minutes to max and to get a slew of lair upgrades (burrow, roach speed, overlord speed) and 2 attack for missile and meele (started not finished). I also could have started my hive at 13 minutes and been on 4 bases (without the removal of the in base natural). | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Also, there's so much potential for creative and interesting arrangements of semi-easy/free 3rd bases that just isn't possible in the 8m paradigm (for obvious reasons we've all grown familiar with). Drastic example: back door rocks that hook up in the front with the natural entrance with a 3rd base. Or a semi-island arrangement. All sorts of things... time delayed block using hostile spine crawlers. ;D The point is I see a huge amount of possibilities that are just not there in 8m that we can sift through -again- or for the first time in 6m because providing various less vulnerable / easier 3rd bases isn't affecting the lategame directly. I hope you don't take this too harshly but I really think you can do better. (We as mappers can do better -- that's a challenge folks.) | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
It though the whole point of 6m was to spread things out and encourage positional play. That idea should be reflected in tower placement as well. I though we were moving past the point of just sticking towers in all the high traffic locations because they exist. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
BoggieMan
520 Posts
I like that the map does not encourage a particular style like all the stupid ladder maps we have right now. | ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
Edit: I hope this is helpful, it's tough to articulate haha. | ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
From your braxis replays income level at 50 harversters on 3 base for zerg 2 blue and one gold. ![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/spatial/Screenshot2012-04-0217_47_02.jpg) Income for zerg on 3 base and 60 drones on korhal compound ![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/spatial/Screenshot2012-04-0218_29_50.jpg) 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
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
