|
On May 25 2012 01:30 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 00:59 Sea_Food wrote:On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote:
I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn. Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn. At the same time, I think it's wrong to coddle every single player on every single map in every single starting position in every single game. Should it be as bad as TvZ in close positions on Metalopolis (ie instant-win for Terran)? No, never. But does that make it okay to say "you need to know three strategies, one against each race, that will work on literally every map, every single time"? Situations like these are perfectly okay. It's only a disadvantage because you think to yourself " could I play a 50 minute game of terror and doom if I spawned here?" and if the answer to that is " no" that doesn't mean the map is bad. Your play style, your strategy, your everything should be based upon the map that you're playing on, the position you spawned in, and the position your opponent spawned in. If that means the game comes down to 2 base vs 2 base, or it all comes down to the struggle for the rotationally disadvantaged third base, that's not a bad thing. Again, the ridiculous auto-lose situations are terrible, and by extension any map which enforces those situations is terrible. But that's not what's happening here. It's just taking the point of contention and moving it from the center, and bringing it closer to a player's base ( by which I understand the main and the natural). It's not a horrible thing to do. As a matter of fact, defending drops on the third would be quite easy for someone who is expecting drops on his third ( as any good player should when he spawns at a rotationally disadvantaged starting point), while the guy who is dropping thinks that this will be an easy win for him. I would argue that there is some advantage to having disadvantages. A good player can turn cliff stairs or rotational disadvantages into a trap for oncoming cliffwalkers or drops, which if it fails to entrap and kill any units, is still a well defended disadvantage.
Firmly stand with chargelot here. Moreover, I would add that the environment of random spawns gives players similar chances to end up fighting "uphill" if you can even call it that, so over a series or a tournament run players face comparable adversity, if you can even call it that.
+ Show Spoiler [about spawn adversity] +Logically, the only way a map can be a priori imbalanced is if it's a mirror match on an asymmetrical map. Any non-mirror match is already asymmetrical, and I don't understand why people fixate on symmetry in the terrain (especially approximate symmetry in 4player maps). You could easily take the top half of XNC and the bottom half of shattered temple, put them together, and play non-mirror games on cross spawns and it'd be totally fine as a map. It'd also be way more interesting than some "balanced" maps I've seen.
|
Asymmetric maps are somewhat okay, but I think this one has something that should be adjusted. The highground middle extends north and south, but not east and west. It is easier for a player to siege/elevator the 5/11 mains from that strip of land than it is to siege the 2/8 mains. My reason is that the direct access path to this high ground area is limited to a ramp, while the chokes are wider on the low grounds.I would suggest either extending the elevated areas in the mid to form a +
shape, or to cut down the two extensions, limiting the elevated area to a central pod.
|
On May 25 2012 01:30 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 00:59 Sea_Food wrote:On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote:
I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn. Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn. At the same time, I think it's wrong to coddle every single player on every single map in every single starting position in every single game. Should it be as bad as TvZ in close positions on Metalopolis (ie instant-win for Terran)? No, never. But does that make it okay to say "you need to know three strategies, one against each race, that will work on literally every map, every single time"? Situations like these are perfectly okay. It's only a disadvantage because you think to yourself " could I play a 50 minute game of terror and doom if I spawned here?" and if the answer to that is " no" that doesn't mean the map is bad. Your play style, your strategy, your everything should be based upon the map that you're playing on, the position you spawned in, and the position your opponent spawned in. If that means the game comes down to 2 base vs 2 base, or it all comes down to the struggle for the rotationally disadvantaged third base, that's not a bad thing. Again, the ridiculous auto-lose situations are terrible, and by extension any map which enforces those situations is terrible. But that's not what's happening here. It's just taking the point of contention and moving it from the center, and bringing it closer to a player's base ( by which I understand the main and the natural). It's not a horrible thing to do. As a matter of fact, defending drops on the third would be quite easy for someone who is expecting drops on his third ( as any good player should when he spawns at a rotationally disadvantaged starting point), while the guy who is dropping thinks that this will be an easy win for him. I would argue that there is some advantage to having disadvantages. A good player can turn cliff stairs or rotational disadvantages into a trap for oncoming cliffwalkers or drops, which if it fails to entrap and kill any units, is still a well defended disadvantage.
I understand what you meaned at first, and think that was smart.
Then i red the last part and laughed.
|
Map Updated!
• Destructible Rocks added to ramps on center high-ground bases.
• Low-ground center bases changed to full, regular blue bases, while the high-ground bases still remain half-bases with high yield gas geysers.
|
Love the changes, they address the only concerns I had, and not only that, but the different spawn positions will feel much more differentiated, which is sweet.
|
On May 25 2012 00:59 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote:
I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn. Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn.
Yeah well but every 4p (or 3p) rotational map is asymmetric in close positions so...
I am aware that different races gain different (dis)advantages from certain position, I'm just saying that it's cool to balance the different (dis)advantages you have in certain positions instead of trying to make it as symmetric as possible. Cos that will inevitably just result in the same boring maps all the time.
|
On May 25 2012 08:29 Ragoo wrote:
Yeah well but every 4p (or 3p) rotational map is asymmetric in close positions so...
I am aware that different races gain different (dis)advantages from certain position, I'm just saying that it's cool to balance the different (dis)advantages you have in certain positions instead of trying to make it as symmetric as possible. Cos that will inevitably just result in the same boring maps all the time.
This is actually a really good point. The game itself isn't balanced symmetrically, because different races have different strengths at different times, for example TvP. During the time window of about 10-13 minutes, T has the advantage generally, since stim and medivacs are both out and terran can apply a lot more pressure, however after that time the Protoss will usually have 3 bases, and colossi or high templar, and can start pushing back, leading up to Protoss's strong late game. It makes sense that maps can also be balanced asymetrically, as a sort of analog to this game balance.
Hope you wanted some drama in yo map thread, IronMan :D
|
On May 25 2012 08:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 08:29 Ragoo wrote:
[...]. It makes sense that maps can also be balanced asymetrically, as a sort of analog to this game balance.
Just to make it clear I'm not encouraging this in 2p or normal 4p mirrored maps at all :D I'm just saying it's fine in 3p/4p rotational or a mixed map like this where it's inevitable.
2p doesn't actually need it to spice it up either, 2p rotational has the biggest amount of possible layouts anyway.
|
Guys, the rocks, that was my idea, tell me what you think ㅋㅋㅋㅋ!!!!!
Sorry it's not often my ideas come into the actual maps so I am curious :D!
|
On May 25 2012 09:21 Diamond wrote:
Guys, the rocks, that was my idea, tell me what you think ㅋㅋㅋㅋ!!!!!
Sorry it's not often my ideas come into the actual maps so I am curious :D!
lol diamond. 
I like it, it includes the XWT in close positions, and the really long scout distance will make games more interesting (imo). They don't add much to the defense of the 3rd base though, because a 2 base timing vs rocks is pretty quick gg, and swiftly on to the 3rd of the enemy. But it'll help a little which is fine, especially vs zerg in horizontal positions, where a delay of 10-30 seconds can make the difference between a dead hatchery and a comfortable hold.
|
On May 25 2012 09:03 Ragoo wrote:
Just to make it clear I'm not encouraging this in 2p or normal 4p mirrored maps at all :D I'm just saying it's fine in 3p/4p rotational or a mixed map like this where it's inevitable.
2p doesn't actually need it to spice it up either, 2p rotational has the biggest amount of possible layouts anyway.
I'm aware, don't worry, I'm just sayin'. I think it's time we start thinking about this type of map more seriously, and start exploring more possibilities.
|
So far in all the recent test games (with masters and coaches etc), the map looks to play out just fine. No major concerns. Once I explained the center bases and the destructible rocks they were more understandable of the scenarios. Thanks to diamond for that idea =)
|
I do not understand the rocks. Isn't it imbalanced if someone is spawning 11 o'clock and his opponent is spawning 8 o'clock? Then one player has to destroy rocks to get a highground 4th, the other player does not need to destroy rocks to take a highground 4th.
|
On June 06 2012 16:12 Apoo wrote:
I do not understand the rocks. Isn't it imbalanced if someone is spawning 11 o'clock and his opponent is spawning 8 o'clock? Then one player has to destroy rocks to get a highground 4th, the other player does not need to destroy rocks to take a highground 4th.
You have to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each spawn point overall. The 11 o'clock player in this scenario does not need to take down rocks to hold the high ground base, but in return their 3rd base is close to the 8 o'clock player and is susceptible to air harass. The matchups aren't going to be perfectly symmetrical, and that's fine, because it usually balances out overall. Also, asymmetric spawns are much more interesting than forced cross spawns, and that fun interesting-ness is the whole reason to take on this type of mixed symmetry.
|
These are really interesting concepts except that with 11 and 2 spawn locations there is an imbalance, the 2 spawn player has his 3rd closer to the main of is opponent, while having no advantage, in fact the advantage is for his opponent, since controlling the high ground for him is more easily doable.
|
Currently re-designing the concept of Khaydaria with the help of the ESV Map Team, a Master Random, Master Terran, Master Zerg, and Master Protoss!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ismqD.jpg)
|
My eyes don't like textured images, and without an analyzer I can only guess, but it appears to me that it's now perfectly rotationally symmetric, am I right?
|
Like this map. The only issue I see is the short distance between 4ths in horizontal positions. Otherwise I think this is great!
|
On June 07 2012 08:17 Chargelot wrote:
My eyes don't like textured images, and without an analyzer I can only guess, but it appears to me that it's now perfectly rotationally symmetric, am I right?
It is rotationally symmetric. The previous version proved to show that the center high ground bases were very important to control at some point in the game, and with two center bases on low ground, it becomes a setback to the player who has that base. All in all, the center bases are an important area of contention on this map, and therefore they must be equal - thus making them all highground pods.
|
love it!
Your best one imo!
If all 4 positions are activated, did you already think to put destructible rocks there (red lines)? it might help when players spawn in close position.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wKIri.jpg)
