[M] (2) Crux Abyssal City LE - Page 5

On September 02 2012 17:47 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Honestly, what is wrong with circle syndrome? I never saw a good argument why it is bad? I only saw a long and detailed post explaining what it is and basically then spending 3 sentences on why it is bad which honestly wasn't very convincing and relied on a lot of assumptions.

Some of the most epic and memorable games have in my opinion happened on maps which are notorious for their circle syndrome and maps which are the antitheses of circle syndrome create pretty boring turtle fests. Circle syndrome leads to base races, circle syndrome leads to counter attacks, circle syndrome leads to forcing players to spread their army out thinly to defend all their bases. I would go so far to say that circle syndrome is a good thing that generates exciting and tense games where expansions are constantly taken and constantly denied. Circle syndrome accomplishes two things: A: It allows expansions to easily be snuck in and hard to be scouted. B: It allows expansions to be easily sniped if you are out of position.

It in every way rewards map awareness and I feel circle syndrome is therefore a good thing, not a bad thing. And honestly, maps which are noted for their lack of circle syndrome, Shakuras, Metropolis, Ohana, Terminus (even though the bases are in a circle). Basically barely saw any epic games compared to Dual Sight, Antiga, TDA.


Are you serious? I was under the impression that everyone wanted to see blink stalker harass?

What do you want to see then from Protoss honestly?

On September 02 2012 18:20 Fatam wrote:


I think the ideal map strikes a balance between turtley/deathballs-always-meet-in-the-middle and circle syndrome. Go too far in either direction and it can make for games which aren't as good to watch.

The problem with a map where blink stalkers are TOO good (it's ok for them to be decent or just good) is
a) Terran has a very difficult time defending against it unless they read it very early. Bunkers at the front? What bunkers? Terran's best way to defend early-ish aggression is via bunkers but you can't really afford to have bunkers in your main AND nat. Even if you manage to defend both mineral lines, it's very possible that the stalkers are able to pick off the tech lab that's halfway done w/ stim or something which is devastating.

b) PvP gets forced into blink stalker vs. blink stalker. You can't go robo if the map is too good for blink stalkers because at high levels the micro will pull robo apart. You can't go stargate, obviously. The matchup becomes 1 dimensional (when it's already the most criticized matchup.. we don't want that).

On September 02 2012 18:33 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I would go so far to say as that I'm not sure if there is an optimum, the more circle syndrome the better I am inclined to say at this point.

I don't see them being any better on any map where you can blink into the main easily like Antiga, Cloud Kingdom, Shakuras, blink all ins can be held there. You gotta pick the right strat for the map of course, doing a blink all in on Daybreak is pretty silly.

As far as all ins go. All ins that involve blink stalkers are some of my favourites to see. Everyone can make a pool at 6 and rally lings to salvation, gamble on an early dark shrine and win due to lack of detection or slam down 3 rax behind a wall, pull all the scvs and go for it. Blink all ins succeed due to micro and decision making and are honestly quite spectacular to watch.

I don't see a big problem if a MU is one dimensional on a certain map, you have to pick your strategy for the map. Shakuras or Ohana TvT will be mech mostly unless Polt or MKP are involved, they are just good for that style. Doesn't make the matchup stale because there are more maps out there on which TvT is played.

Personally, I find blinkobs vs blinkobs basically the most entertaining thing to watch in the game except muta/ling/bane versus MMM. Seldom does trying to positionally outwit your opponent go hand in hand with such amazing display of micro and split second decisions. blinkobs versus blinkobs is just extremely tactical, extremely strategical and extremely mechanical.

I think there's definitely a reason why Korean maps favour circle syndrome, I am absolutely not sold on the notion that circle syndrome is a bad thing at all. I also absolutely don't see why things like drops or blink harass should in any way be discouraged. Hell, if I made this map I made a little stepping stone a-la Antiga so that reapers could jump into the main, the more oppertunities for multi pronged attacks the better. Circle syndrome discourages deathballing and rewards splitting up your army well. It also all around just rewards map awareness since you have to start moving your army to defend your hatchery long before it's actually taking damage from whatever that is trying to kill it, and what's more, you have to split your army appropriately doing so because if you just 1-a it he will send a squad to the other side of the map to take out your other base which is very far apart.

On September 03 2012 00:10 a176 wrote:


it goes a bit more further than just putting bases in a circle. how the bases themselves are designed is important. this map will inevitably be compared to daybreak in the way the general terrain is laid out. take for example the [far] fourth on daybreak; while pretty far from the rest of the bases, the terrain layout gives the defender the advantage, esp in putting down defensive buildings and walloffs. even the middle 5th, while it cannot be walled off, defensive buildings can be effective here, and its basically right on your doorstep meaning its easy to reinforce with units.

this map, you can wall off the fourth towards the ccw path, but its so ridiculously exposed it wont make a difference. and not to mention giving the attacker terrain advantage right at that spot too.

tldr; nothing intrinsically wrong with putting bases in a circle as long as you give the defender an adequate chance for defense. this map = very hard to defend 4th and 5th

On September 03 2012 02:51 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I know what circle syndrome is, I'm not sure where you get from that I think it's about bases being put in a circle, as I said in that post. Terminus has extremely low circle syndrome.

And as I said, I consider far away placed expansions which are hard to defend and easy to sneak in which forces players to go out of their way to attack and defend them a good thing, not a bad thing. It leads to epic games.

On September 03 2012 05:19 Gfire wrote:

I think, in theory, when you have the expansions closer to the opponent and quite open, you need to dedicate a ton of units to defend it. If it's further away and tighter, you need fewer units defending which means you can use some of your units doing other stuff.

Of course if the players still choose to turtle on a map like that, then it doesn't really help (and is probably worse.) But at least they don't need to use their entire deathball army to defend if they want to take a fourth base.

The tough thing for mappers is about how much you trust the players to do a good job making good games. Certain styles of maps can encourage better play, but you can also give the players more freedom to do whatever they wish and trust they will show something good.

On September 03 2012 06:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Well, I think that in practice, despite people complaining that maps like antiga and dual sight give you 'impossible to defend fourths' or whatever, they have in general given us some of the more epic and memorable bases that frequently came down to constant action, expo killing and long distance mining whereas maps low in CS like Ohana, I can't remember a single epic game on that map for the ages? Most games on that map seem to be decided by a single engagement.

I think the level of play on the pro level is currently advanced enough to take advantage of CS and generate epic games from it. I also really don't see the problem with the 6th on this map. (ohana doesn't even give you a 6th). I like it if maps have bases of which it isn't quite clear to which player they belong honestly. Dual Site also had that, it was never quite clear whose 'gold base' was whose, meaning there was more contest over them.

On September 03 2012 06:24 monitor wrote:

Wait... what? I wasn't planning on stepping in here but I think I will join the conversation.

Antiga's fourth is nearly impossible to defend, as you say. That doesn't mean that the games aren't epic. Good players usually make things very entertaining and action-packed if the map is decent enough. Yes there have been lots of great games on Antiga, but there are also numerous imbalances and the games we get aren't necessarily as good as we could have with better maps. I'd bet money that we could have new maps that would provide better games than Antiga (and that would allow comebacks, because the lack of a fourth makes short games that aren't easy to recover from mistakes).

Dual Sight barely had any "epic" (long macro with tons of harass, micro, etc.) games and it was somewhat imbalanced, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind neutral bases like the golds, but the circle syndrome didn't help the gameplay on Dual Sight.

Ohana has low CS but it has other issues that prevent the epic games that you mention. I consider quite of few of the WCS Korea games on the map quite intense and good though. Anyway the fourth and fifth are very difficult for Zerg to defend, like on Antiga. They are just too close to the opponent so there isn't any time to react to pushes and counterattacks aren't as effective since the retreat path is so short. The map is also very choked in the lategame unlike Entombed, for example. It's silly to say that low CS is the reason it plays badly, because that is just wrong. Metropolis has low CS but it plays completely oppositely... from a map design perspective, it isn't a good design (linear bases, turtle-friend, low harass potential, lots of wasted space, etc.) but the gameplay is pretty exciting most of the time.

Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom have very low circle syndrome by my definition of the word, because most of the expansions are not neutral and players tend to expand in the same pattern each game, give or take the order of the fourth bases. There are still lots of things that I dislike about their map deigns however. Daybreak has very limited pathing options, there is not much potential for cliff harassment, drops, etc. except for the fact that the fourth base and main are easy to drop. Also the expansions are very linear and don't require any map control, although SC2 doesn't have much map control in any Z matchup since zerg controls the whole map.

I can't give any great examples of new maps that have low CS that I think we should use. There just aren't many amazing/fantastic new maps. But I do believe it is possible. I know a lot of mapmakers have been working a lot behind the scenes to produce some new, high quality maps that are very experimental. And I promise some of the maps will make a dent in the scene, its just a matter of time (because all of the mapmakers are doing it).

Firstly, is Antiga truly so imbalanced: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/500_Antiga_Shipyard_1.2 ?

I think it's a pretty decent map as far as balance goes.

That out of the way, yes, fourths are hard to take and defend on Antiga, I call that 'skill ceiling', that elusive thing that everyone claims they want in this game, but in reality secretly actually don't. The same people who scream high and low that the skill ceiling of SC2 is too low don't play BW any more because they've been spoilt by a UI that macros for you. The same people complain about ultralisks 'derping out' and want them to run over lings because it supposedly makes them 'useless', rather than a unit which with good control and management becomes a powerful tool in the hands of a master. Antiga's layout rewards map awareness. It is no secret that Stephano absolutely loves this map in ZvT, and what is he known for? The guy with the supreme map awareness, the first player who could answer every drop without needing to make a single mutalisk, his lings are there before your medivacs unload every single time; consequently he can take a fourth on Antiga and defend it because he always has an answer to your drops, which is what the map rewards as his opponents cannot as they have no answer for his ling runbies ravaging their scv lines.

I beg to differ. Dual Site was the original map on which DRG originally made all his splashes, he always choose this map and the map suits his supreme reaction speed and mechanics, he would practice runbies with lings at multiple angles while defending drops himself. Leenock also always favoured picking this map and had similar highly exciting games on it. The MMA vs DRG game in the Blizzard Cup finals was also pretty amazing to watch honestly. Dual Site has generated some of the most tense, nailbiting and exciting games.

I look foward, I think CK is an excellent model because as I said above, the map sort of says 'You have to play it CS if you want an optimal attack path but you can play it with less CS if you want to attack through a choke or ramp.', which sort of gives you the best of both worlds I guess.

On September 03 2012 07:21 monitor wrote:

Stats aren't necessarily an indicator of the balance, like if you talk to players you'll hear ZvP is difficult if Protoss can take a third. ZvT is difficult if Terran controls the center. That aside, in the past three months, the games are a little worse:

TvZ: 98-103 (48.8%) | ZvP: 108-96 (52.9%) | PvT: 93-72 (56.4%)
Past three months of Antiga stats

The difficult fourth bases reduces the skill ceiling. Yes, there is some skill in defending drops, but that isn't the reason its so hard to hold. The fourth is extremely far away for any race (not just zerg) and the push distance for the opponent is almost shorter than the defender's reinforcing distance. Hiding a fourth, controlling the center, or distracting the opponent enough or preventing them from leaving their base are really the only three viable ways to take it.

Those games you're talking about weren't hinging on the map design, imo. And of course Zerg players picked it! It was fantastic- two entrances into the natural, far and open third, and a wide open middle with lots of places for counters. Of course this is not what I'm talking about at all- those problems could be fixed easily by adjusting chokes. The problem is the lack of a good fifth (btw, the golds were removed not long into the maps history because of Terran favor). The fifth would almost always go down within two or three minutes of taking it because its so close to the opponent's fifth or natural, depending on the expansion direction.

I agree that CK is a well designed map, but I disagree that CS is required to have optimal attack paths. It would be SO easy to fix Daybreak without giving it circle syndrome. Simply using the space effectively would almost fix it. On Metropolis, the same fix is applicable. Also cliffs on fourth+ bases are something that could improve both maps, but of course Metropolis would have to be forced cross spawns then, not that it matters.

Yes, so, if you have great map awareness you can respond to the push well in time. I don't see the issue. Stephano with his supreme map awareness never has troubles securing fourths on that map and that's probably one of the reasons he always picks it against T.