|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8zDcB.jpg)
Published on NA Playable map bounds 130 x 130
This is another iteration of the map here.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324640
The map was changed so much it has an entirely different character. I thought it warranted a new name and thread.
The goal is still to have different expansion path options and for the map to play slightly differently in each match-up.
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
Screenshots
+ Show Spoiler +
The design of this map makes it possible achieve different base layouts depending on when it is standard to take 2nd and 3rd bases in a given matchup.
Scenarios
ZvP
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JESsC.jpg) This is the most likely scenario to start the game in a ZvP match. Protoss FFE and Zerg takes a fast three bases. I don't believe Zergs will mind so much that the easiest to quickly take 3rd base is open because they do better out in the open. But, if for whatever reason they don't want this base as their third they could do. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5iDJE.jpg) or ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3cGez.jpg) and knock down the appropriate rocks between bases as soon as possible. Lets say though that we are in the assumed most likely scenario. The first one depicted. When protoss goes for their third they have options. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8rdry.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JdT9T.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dUN4I.jpg) The idea is that one of them suits the playstyle of the particular protoss player. Expanding toward your opponent tends to be more aggressive and away more defensive.
ZvT
+ Show Spoiler +In ZvT the Zerg does not commonly take a third as fast as they do in ZvP and a Terran does not take his natural as quickly as a protoss on average as well either. Therefore I see this matchup being even more flexible. Here are a few of the options. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X1xMV.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f9EHB.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SQBZ2.jpg) Hopefully, you can see the possibilties.
TvP
+ Show Spoiler +
Another feature of this map is that it has many attack paths. No matter what 2 or 3 base scenario you are on there is always a "backdoor" to try and go for. Effort was made so that none of these "backdoors" are a much shorter distant than the front. Additionally, they are defensible. Hopefully, this encourages more attacking and/or sneak attacks while assigning proper risk/reward values to these options so that it is interesting.
Feedback welcome!
There seems to be some general distaste for the second main base ramp. I still don't understand why the second ramp in the main will not work under any circumstances. I have not heard a specific reason. But, since public opinion matters I present an alternate version without the second ramp and a poll.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UEBJ4.jpg)
Poll: What do you think of the second main base ramp?The way it has been implemented on this map deserves testing (17) 81% Its not going to work. Get rid of it. (4) 19% 21 total votes Your vote: What do you think of the second main base ramp? (Vote): The way it has been implemented on this map deserves testing
(Vote): Its not going to work. Get rid of it.
Other maps by me
Aiur Refuge - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=333094
Deep Space Alpha - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330893
|
I like it. Taking the high ground base makes it easy to defend with your army in position at the middle base, but leaves the backdoor to the main vulnerable. Plenty of areas to fight, with open areas on the low ground and chokes at the ramps makes chossing where to fight important. Would love to see some games on this.
|
Cool map, but the back rock in the main has never been a good idea IMO. Try adjusting that maybe a path to the left side expansion behind the rocks. Or maybe an alternate whole route to the back rocks. I don't know it might work, blistering it didn't really work, crossfire, nor kulas
|
It's good except for main-back-door. Don't do that, ever, please.
|
On April 07 2012 14:34 DashedHopes wrote:
Cool map, but the back rock in the main has never been a good idea IMO. Try adjusting that maybe a path to the left side expansion behind the rocks. Or maybe an alternate whole route to the back rocks. I don't know it might work, blistering it didn't really work, crossfire, nor kulas
I think a lot of people feel that way about back rocks. It certainly has received a negative stigma due to those maps and other failures of the past. Let's look at the maps you mentioned though.
Blistering Sands
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UOJC2.jpg) I believe that this is the one of the three where the back rocks were a major contributor to the map not working. In my opinion there were 3 major reasons why the rocks were a problem. 1. They were out front, basically on the way to the front of the natural. Its position was such that it quite often was the preferred place to attack. 2. The defender had to travel further than the attacker between the two fronts (i.e. the back door and the front of the natural). How many times did you see a zerg breaking down the rocks, protoss move his army to defend them, then when the rocks were down the zerg just bounced over to the natural? 3. There was no additional reason to position your army near the rocks beside for defending them. Positioning your army near them did not give you good control of an additional base. The rocks that lead into the main on my map are: 1. On a completely different path than to the front of the base. A path that gets your army way out of position and is hard to retreat from. 2. It is not possible for the attacker to bounce between them and the front with more ease than the defender. 3. By securing the rocks you essentially secure another base.
Crossfire
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9jkkp.jpg) I realize that this is not the GSL version that received the most play but it is close enough for the purposes here. Of all the games I saw on this map in the GSL, I don't remember the back rocks being a problem. In fact they were rarely in play. The path to get to them was so far around players would only try for them in a desperate all-in and it was usually defended. (Keep in mind this is from my experience spectating games.) In my opinion what made this map bad was hard to take third bases and too many chokes. Not the back rocks.
Kulas Ravine
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m5Z7A.jpg) My experience with this map is limited because I don't remember it being around long. At least not during a time that resembles anything like the current metagame. I don't believe rocks were a huge problem here either. This one does grant access to additional bases through rocks though. However, I think what did this map in was the high ground overlooking the naturals.
|
On April 07 2012 16:48 DYEAlabaster wrote:
It's good except for main-back-door. Don't do that, ever, please.
Why do you feel so strongly about that? What problem does it cause on this map? I'm not saying I KNOW it will be fine, but I think it seems legitimate enough to receive testing.
|
On April 07 2012 17:09 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2012 16:48 DYEAlabaster wrote:
It's good except for main-back-door. Don't do that, ever, please. Why do you feel so strongly about that? What problem does it cause on this map? I'm not saying I KNOW it will be fine, but I think it seems legitimate enough to receive testing.
It has been experimented wayy to much.
|
On April 07 2012 17:09 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2012 16:48 DYEAlabaster wrote:
It's good except for main-back-door. Don't do that, ever, please. Why do you feel so strongly about that? What problem does it cause on this map? I'm not saying I KNOW it will be fine, but I think it seems legitimate enough to receive testing.
Everymap to ever have a backdoor in the history of Sc2 has been panned into the ground, whether it be through testing, through play, or through the simply fact that a backdoor means that you have ZERO guaranteed bases. Which provokes a very turtley, 1base all-in style of play.
The only map with precedent of having "functional" backdoor rocks is Crossfire LE, which you can refer to the above "1base turtle all-in" dominating that map.
|
On April 07 2012 18:39 Sea_Food wrote:
It has been experimented wayy to much.
Has it? I admit I could be ignorant to all the details of how we arrived at our current conclusions about maps. If you are correct can you cite more examples besides the ones already discussed? That way we can look at what went wrong with those maps in detail and therefore might learn something from it.
|
United States1699 Posts
The backdoor here seems okay. The main problem is that to swing from the backdoor expansions to the regular natural, you'll have to either go through the main (a pain with a larger army,) or all the way around to almost the center of the map. This is good if you're defending both the front and back entrances to the main, because the enemy has a long way to go in between, but it makes it difficult lategame to expand in both directions. However, the center design of the map is genius and pretty much allows you to post your army way out there without being too close to the opponent's army. The front main ramp is also really close to the back one, so that helps a lot, too.
Generally, it will encourage aggression and battles more than most maps, which is probably good. It's worth testing, at the very least.
You do need to move the debris down onto the ramp so you can't get vision into the main by walking partway up.
I don't really like the watchtowers. I feel like it would be better without them. Maybe you could put them in the very empty corners to spot drops or something.
|
On April 16 2012 05:22 Gfire wrote:
The backdoor here seems okay. The main problem is that to swing from the backdoor expansions to the regular natural, you'll have to either go through the main (a pain with a larger army,) or all the way around to almost the center of the map. This is good if you're defending both the front and back entrances to the main, because the enemy has a long way to go in between, but it makes it difficult lategame to expand in both directions. However, the center design of the map is genius and pretty much allows you to post your army way out there without being too close to the opponent's army. The front main ramp is also really close to the back one, so that helps a lot, too.
Generally, it will encourage aggression and battles more than most maps, which is probably good. It's worth testing, at the very least.
You do need to move the debris down onto the ramp so you can't get vision into the main by walking partway up.
I don't really like the watchtowers. I feel like it would be better without them. Maybe you could put them in the very empty corners to spot drops or something.
I did that already with the debris. I should probably update the images.
I'll examine the towers.
|
United States1699 Posts
Yeah, you should probably get some more opinions on the towers. It just seems to me that the highground setup in the center would be cooler without the towers there.
|
all thse maps look the same..
wtf..
|
On April 16 2012 06:36 Gfire wrote:
Yeah, you should probably get some more opinions on the towers. It just seems to me that the highground setup in the center would be cooler without the towers there.
How about if I placed the towers here where the white dots are. It would allow for some vision of the middle and you can watch your backdoor.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2dGfW.jpg)
|
Changes made
Minor texture updates
Moved watchtowers per gfire's suggestion
|
United States1699 Posts
Do the watchtowers reach to the end of the map, or can you slip drops around them?
|
The problem with main back-door-ramps is as follows:
More often than not, it means that you don't have a guaranteed base. A guaranteed base is one that you can hold, baring unique circumstances, without fear of a huge attack destroying you in seconds. In other words, you don't constantly have to watch your back for a killmove to come and take out a guaranteed base.
The way that Sc2 has been moving at present is towards having TWO guaranteed bases/player. Usually, a player can get their main and their natural without worrying too much about being blindsided by something weird. Of course, there are lots of all ins/drops that can dismantle you, but compare metropolis' "guaranteed" natural to metalopolis' rather open one. On Metropolis it's much easier to get a natural, but on metal, so many random things can blindside you (hellions, ling runbys, etc). It makes that base fairly hard to hold comparatively.
Another bad thing about the backdoor rocks you have implemented is that it significantly shortens the distance between your opponent and you. This has two major problems associated with it. Firstly is something called attack-arcs. If you look at Blistering Sands, the attacker has a smaller attack arc than the defender (ie, an attacker has to move less in order to be in position to do damage than the defender has to move in order to defend). What this did is make the map have a defenders DISADVANTAGE when on two bases.
Ideally, you always want a defenders ADVANTAGE, so having an defending attack arc should always be SMALLER than an attackers attack arch, as per map terrain (if someone sim-cities like a retard, it's their own fault). This map has an attack arch that is smaller than a defender's (to recap, a smaller attack arcs are better, less distance to move). If someone has three bases (natural, back-door base, main, and the attacker takes out the wide-rocks, he has to move a significantly smaller (and easier to traverse distance due to lack of ramps) in order to attack the defender.
Secondly, because of the above point, it encourages a certain playstyle over another (namely, aggression), which means that your back-door base, put in for purpose of macro, defeats itself by its own design, because players are going to hesitate to take it because of the necessity to be aggressive.
In historical SC2, there has only ever been 1 map that had back door rocks and has been considered "good". That map was Crossfire SE, which, while now generally reviled, was considered a good map back in the day. However, looking at match history in that map, you'll rarely ever see people taking 3 bases, and usually you have a terran 1-1-1 haven, zergs slitting their wrists crying little zerg tears, etc etc. However, the reason that the map itself had backdoor rocks that weren't an issue is because there was no way to really attack them efficiently. You had to funnel your entire army into a choke past a base, on low ground. In retrospect, this was done to help the defending player have an easier time getting a third (back when thirds were unknown territory), rather than allowing the attacker some weird advantage.
A map that I feel does backdoor rocks well is SenSeSC2 Akdang Hideout (found on these forums). It also gives some attacking options, but the defenders arc for 3 base is smaller than the attacking arc. Also there are double-rocks.
Hope this helps with explaining why back-door rocks are bad. You mentioned that people didn't let you know why they were generally hated
|
United States1699 Posts
If you take those three bases, you shouldn't still be keeping your army in the main. If you do, and they destroy two sets of rocks and you take the backdoor third (which is not the only third option,) then you are at a disadvantage. If you want to take that base, after the wide rocks are destroyed you are forced to control your high ground pod or else be at a disadvantage. It's similar to having to control the high ground to take a third on Korhal Compound. Once you control that high ground, it can be pretty easy to secure a fourth, a lot like Korhal, as well.
It's possible that when you position your army on that high ground, you will be spread too thin. It's possible that the map overall is too small, and the distances everywhere need to be bigger. Maybe the high ground in the middle needs to be pulled back a bit towards the main, to reduce the curve of whoever is controlling that space after the rocks go down.
This concept gives the advantage to the player who controls the forward points on the map, whether the attacker or the defender. Generally it might be a little easier for the attacker to secure the location in the early game, but that's okay up until the time when the rocks go down. If the defender is out of position (still turtling in their main,) then they don't know how to defend those three bases and they deserve a disadvantage.
Only if they are unable to secure the high ground pod, or they do and still can't defend, then you can argue that there are some problems. That's not something I can say just by looking at the map.
Anyway, the map forces the defender to have to pay attention to things, and actually work for a defender's advantage instead of getting it free. I don't think it's a bad thing. The map might favor aggression more than other maps, but I think that's fine.
|
On May 03 2012 05:25 Gfire wrote:
Do the watchtowers reach to the end of the map, or can you slip drops around them?
If you look at the analyzer summary it shows there is space to slip drops by.
|
United States1699 Posts
On May 03 2012 06:49 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 05:25 Gfire wrote:
Do the watchtowers reach to the end of the map, or can you slip drops around them? If you look at the analyzer summary it shows there is space to slip drops by.
Lol, I'm an idiot.
Hmmm... I do think that maybe moving the high ground bits near the middle a little further away from each other and back towards the bases might help this map out a bit, the more I think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MMZhU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MsJxo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TfXA7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I1ayK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CzErh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q3fC3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AMMue.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U1Jzi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zn8Oo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vNrXT.jpg)
