On August 09 2012 07:36 monitor wrote:
Map design always comes first, and then balance. Any map can be balanced through a series of choke adjustments, mineral count adjustments, etc. Its hard for me to articulate my thoughts on the third, but basically I think its not worth focusing so much specifically to make sure its balanced and fits the metagame. However, it is a major point of map design.

What is worth focusing on is the map concept of a map, and unfortunately SC2 maps have had very weak concepts so far (however, I know there are lots of outstanding maps coming up soon, that aren't released yet). Easy thirds only have so many options when the main and natural are the standard layout, which results in very boring and repetitive maps/games. I've been starting to experiment a lot with this. For example:

WIP 4player:
+ Show Spoiler +

Bloody ridge:
+ Show Spoiler +

Bizarre positional balance:
+ Show Spoiler +

These are mind blowing and beautiful *____*

I'd love to see some great positional TvTs on that first map.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 20 2012 17:34 GMT

#42

I want to talk about what Dustin Browder said in monk's interview from BWC. Regarding the limitations of map design, first of all he noted that they are concerned about this. So that's good that at least it's on their radar in some respect.

The answer he gave for the solution is that the new units and strategies in HotS will allow maps to have more difficult third bases, fixing the phenomenon where easy 3rds for the sake of protoss and zerg make for automatic 3base games in all matchups with very little options for successful aggression. Obviously there's no way to judge this right now but I agree with the sentiment.

What I want to bring up specifically is that in the context of PvZ, I don't think we could possibly have additional units (based on what we have so far) that let protoss defend a 3rd base more easily in order to "keep pace" with the zerg unless it's an easy 3rd base and nothing has changed. If the units were that good they'd be imba. So does that mean the units zerg has allow them to play a 2base game for a little bit longer? If the 3rd is more vulnerable -- aka farther away in most cases -- will they still be able to take a fast 3rd base vs FFE (possibly nexus gate forge FFE)? Is it okay if we have a balanced metagame where zerg and protoss fight on "equal" economic footing for a certain window in the early-mid game, despite zerg's "identity" as the economic outproducer?

We still have forcefield as the primary defensive option unless the game has gone on long enough for tech units to matter either through sufficient numbers or micro. Stargate can't kill attackers fast enough and ground units can't fight zerg max head-on. So... does this mean that zergs will have to live with a difficult to take 3rd base? Does that mean 3rd bases will have to be "away" from the opponent to balance ZvT?

SiskosGoatee

Albania1482 Posts

November 21 2012 07:57 GMT

#43

On November 21 2012 02:34 EatThePath wrote:
I want to talk about what Dustin Browder said in monk's interview from BWC. Regarding the limitations of map design, first of all he noted that they are concerned about this. So that's good that at least it's on their radar in some respect.

The answer he gave for the solution is that the new units and strategies in HotS will allow maps to have more difficult third bases, fixing the phenomenon where easy 3rds for the sake of protoss and zerg make for automatic 3base games in all matchups with very little options for successful aggression. Obviously there's no way to judge this right now but I agree with the sentiment.

What I want to bring up specifically is that in the context of PvZ, I don't think we could possibly have additional units (based on what we have so far) that let protoss defend a 3rd base more easily in order to "keep pace" with the zerg unless it's an easy 3rd base and nothing has changed. If the units were that good they'd be imba. So does that mean the units zerg has allow them to play a 2base game for a little bit longer? If the 3rd is more vulnerable -- aka farther away in most cases -- will they still be able to take a fast 3rd base vs FFE (possibly nexus gate forge FFE)? Is it okay if we have a balanced metagame where zerg and protoss fight on "equal" economic footing for a certain window in the early-mid game, despite zerg's "identity" as the economic outproducer?

We still have forcefield as the primary defensive option unless the game has gone on long enough for tech units to matter either through sufficient numbers or micro. Stargate can't kill attackers fast enough and ground units can't fight zerg max head-on. So... does this mean that zergs will have to live with a difficult to take 3rd base? Does that mean 3rd bases will have to be "away" from the opponent to balance ZvT?

You do realize the majority opinion on this thread basically was that the OP was incorrect right and no such ZvP problem of distance per se exists?

I'm going to have to agree, you can always make a third easier or harder in PvZ to hold by just adding or removing chokage. I never had any problems securing a third on Korhal Compound in PvZ because it's fairly choked and the chokes can be more easily used against Zerg there with a pylon on the high ground warping in as well.