I was looking at some of the maps in this forum, and I'm beginning to see a common "mistake" in these maps. A lot of the maps look pretty and are well made, but there's one key balance/design problem that I think most map-makers either don't know or ignore. This is that on most custom maps, it's too hard for Protoss to take a third against Zerg. Next to Protoss being able to FFE (which most map-makers take into account), I believe this is the most important feature that needs to be addressed in maps. Against extremely heavy roach pressure, commonly known as "Stephano Style Roach Aggression", it is impossible for Protoss to take a third on certain maps. Here are some map features that allow Protoss to take a third:
Short distance between natural and third. Ex: Cloud Kingdom, Entombed Valley
The ability to bounce back between the natural and third without running into enemy units. Ex: Cloud Kingdom, Entombed Valley, Daybreak, Not Korhal Compound
Chokes and/or ramps to the entrances of the natural/third. Ex: Cloud Kingdom, Entombed Valley
Small surface area to cover with forcefields to all bases. Ex: Not Antiga Shipyards, Not Dual Sight
Large rush distance to opponent's natural/third. Ex: Metropolis, Whirlwind, Not Antiga Shipyards
Impossible for Protoss to take a passive third
Korhal Compound: Distance between natural and third is too long,
Dual Sight: Too much surface area to cover between both natural and third.
Really really hard for Protoss to take a passive third
Antiga Shipyards: Too much surface area to cover between natural and third, needs about 7 forcefields to cover the whole thing
Shakuras Plateau: Too much surface area to cover between natural and tucked third, need a ton of forcefields. You can't bounce back between natural and opposite natural, should you choose to take that as your third.
Acceptable Standard Maps-not too easy, not too hard
Daybreak: large choke to third and large ramp at natural make it somewhat difficult
Cloud Kingdom: two paths to the third make it somewhat difficult
Metropolis: large rush distance helps deter roach attacks greatly
Whirlwind: the natural/third design is actually bad for vs roach attacks, but the size of the maps counteracts this greatly
Atlantis Spaceship
Ohana
Probably too easy to take a third
Entombed Valley: all PvZs are generally very passive here, has almost all the features Protoss could want to take an easy third. Still, a somewhat acceptable map
Calm Before The Storm: way too easy to get both the natural and third
If a map is too easy for Protoss to take a third, you'll end up with overly passive games. If it's too hard, Protoss will always 2 base all-in. You'll also notice that most of the maps that are too easy/hard are being phased out, while all of the acceptable standard maps are the ones we currently use. In the future, at least until HotS comes out to change things, it's probably better to make maps that are at least somewhat easy to take a third on. That's all. Good day!
I'm delighted you brought up this subject, monk. As a protoss player and mapper, I usually spend the most time worrying about the 3rd base precisely because of PvZ, for exactly the reasons you sum up with.
I was looking at some of the maps in this forum, and I'm beginning to see a common "mistake" in these maps.
As to that... realize that many of these maps have myriad problems of varying severity. They are works in progress, or flawed attempts by novice mappers. In general the large majority of maps here are "playable" but very few are quite "competitive" out of the box without demanding a tilted metagame.
Nevertheless it's something very important for mappers to realize, so again, I'm glad you brought it up. The first 3 bases define PvZ so drastically compared to the other matchups (from the mapper's perspective). Moreover, the 4th base options really direct the protoss player's plan in a macro game. Entombed Valley has stupid passive games because no one can deny bases without it being a winning blow anyway, so it usually becomes a long, drawn out cost-effectiveness war with very little opportunity to divert before the late game.
I'm looking forward to seeing some responses so I can address specific points; I have given a ton of thought to this, but for now I can't improve upon the summary in the OP.
Looking at your Acceptable maps I do agree with you for the most part but I also think that the third on metropolis isn't a good map to point out. The 3rd is quite open and even more so if you knock down any rocks. I feel the only reason it works well on the map is because of how gigantic the map is. Plus depending on the spawn positions going from Your main to enemy 3rd is going to take longer then it would be to go from your main to enemy natural.
The major problem I see in most maps lately is that the 3rd is close enough to the natural so it feels like it should be easy to take, yet it is completely wide open which means defending it against a 3 base Stephano style play is just about impossible. Having just the right amount of chokage around the 3rd will make or break it into a good map.
I also think high ground pods need to come back into play. With or Without ramps to them. Honestly look at Lost Temple, having the high ground by the natural for tank drops was a nightmare for zerg. Now though, with maps getting bigger and bigger, zergs making more queens for defense and overall zergs just getting better; playing Lost Temple wouldn't be as Terran Favored as it use to be. (Well this and not having close by ground positions lol). Having high ground pods now just means that terran and protoss have a safer way to harass the natural/3rd without having to go all-in.
A game I always like to think back to is the MMA vs DRG game 7 on shakuras when MMA kept putting tanks and thors up on the high ground in the middle of shakuras. That is one of the only reasons he was able to hold his ground, and even so DRG was still able to break through multiple times but for the most part he lost too many units to be able to finish this off. Every single map made today doesn't have any random high ground pods and if they do they are in spots that don't matter at all. It also means Terran and Protoss can take the forward third on shakuras because terran can set up units on the high ground in their main, or in the middle of the map to defend.
On August 09 2012 06:37 SidianTheBard wrote: Looking at your Acceptable maps I do agree with you for the most part but I also think that the third on metropolis isn't a good map to point out. The 3rd is quite open and even more so if you knock down any rocks. I feel the only reason it works well on the map is because of how gigantic the map is. Plus depending on the spawn positions going from Your main to enemy 3rd is going to take longer then it would be to go from your main to enemy natural.
The major problem I see in most maps lately is that the 3rd is close enough to the natural so it feels like it should be easy to take, yet it is completely wide open which means defending it against a 3 base Stephano style play is just about impossible. Having just the right amount of chokage around the 3rd will make or break it into a good map.
I also think high ground pods need to come back into play. With or Without ramps to them. Honestly look at Lost Temple, having the high ground by the natural for tank drops was a nightmare for zerg. Now though, with maps getting bigger and bigger, zergs making more queens for defense and overall zergs just getting better; playing Lost Temple wouldn't be as Terran Favored as it use to be. (Well this and not having close by ground positions lol). Having high ground pods now just means that terran and protoss have a safer way to harass the natural/3rd without having to go all-in.
A game I always like to think back to is the MMA vs DRG game 7 on shakuras when MMA kept putting tanks and thors up on the high ground in the middle of shakuras. That is one of the only reasons he was able to hold his ground, and even so DRG was still able to break through multiple times but for the most part he lost too many units to be able to finish this off. Every single map made today doesn't have any random high ground pods and if they do they are in spots that don't matter at all. It also means Terran and Protoss can take the forward third on shakuras because terran can set up units on the high ground in their main, or in the middle of the map to defend.
Yea, Metropolis isn't ideal, but it is one of the maps where it's easy to take a third, partially because of the long rush distance. Whirlwind is another map that shares this characteristic, but even more so. The natural/third design, on their own are pretty bad for taking a third in PvZ, but the large rush distance deter roach attacks. I'll add that in as a feature.
I'm also glad this point has been brought up. For a little while now I've been talking about third bases, and how the current solution seems to be creating third bases to be more of a "second natural" in terms of its proximity and ease of defence. I think this method, while it allows defence against the Stephano-style roach aggression, contributes heavily to the passive, death ball-style of play that seems to plague StarCraft 2. The idea around defending these bases is to sit your big army in between the natural and third, and bounce back and forth wherever pressure is being applied. In other words, it's designed in a way that assumes death ball.
I wrote a blog post talking a bit about current maps like Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, and Daybreak, and how this 3 base paradigm affects the game. I'm honestly of the opinion that mapmakers haven't explored enough with the dynamic between choked/open areas in their terrain design, particularly as it pertains to base defence. Take a look at any of the maps I already mentioned in SC2, and then compare them with some Brood War examples:
In all of these BW examples, the thirds are positioned in a way that don't allow for easy bounce back between the third and natural, but the answer lay with the ability to defend the third with tight chokes. It's a terrain design that encourages splitting of the army to defend, and such splitting actually works (as opposed to just getting your army crushed) thanks to the chokes that prevent a larger army from utilizing its full potential. Consequently, it becomes more effective/desirable to rather send in smaller harassment groups, rather than brute forcing with a full army.
Surprisingly, we have yet to really see this concept attempted in tournament-level SC2 maps.
Edit: spoiler'd the images for sanity's sake. x_x!
Personally I think maps like Ohana are ideal. In the early game, Zerg has to traverse a farther distance to defend a third base, making protoss pressure stronger. However, this doesn't make it harder for Protoss to take a third because the rocks also help to defend the base. I think you have to have maps like these because if you make it to easy to defend the third base, Zergs will have a hard time attacking Terran in ZvT. Maps like Entombed Valley allow Terran to turtle very easily on three bases which is very hard for Zerg because they are forced to play a certain style (turtle to fast 5 bases and infestor broodlord bust). Counter attacks on maps like these (which are essential in ZvT) are too difficult.
On August 09 2012 07:14 iamcaustic wrote: I'm also glad this point has been brought up. For a little while now I've been talking about third bases, and how the current solution seems to be creating third bases to be more of a "second natural" in terms of its proximity and ease of defence. I think this method, while it allows defence against the Stephano-style roach aggression, contributes heavily to the passive, death ball-style of play that seems to plague StarCraft 2. The idea around defending these bases is to sit your big army in between the natural and third, and bounce back and forth wherever pressure is being applied. In other words, it's designed in a way that assumes death ball.
I wrote a blog post talking a bit about current maps like Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, and Daybreak, and how this 3 base paradigm affects the game. I'm honestly of the opinion that mapmakers haven't explored enough with the dynamic between choked/open areas in their terrain design, particularly as it pertains to base defence. Take a look at any of the maps I already mentioned in SC2, and then compare them with some Brood War examples:
[snip]
In all of these BW examples, the thirds are positioned in a way that don't allow for easy bounce back between the third and natural, but the answer lay with the ability to defend the third with tight chokes. It's a terrain design that encourages splitting of the army to defend, and such splitting actually works (as opposed to just getting your army crushed) thanks to the chokes that prevent a larger army from utilizing its full potential. Consequently, it becomes more effective/desirable to rather send in smaller harassment groups, rather than brute forcing with a full army.
Surprisingly, we have yet to really see this concept attempted in tournament-level SC2 maps.
BW doesn't work the same way as SC2 and to be honest when I see you start talking about death balls I begin to not take you seriously because deathballs are not a huge problem in sc2 anymore. SC2 is a lot more restricted than in BW with respect to how far your third can be from your base. For instance, here is a BW adaptation of Cloud Kingdom
The distance between the natural and the third, in game, is much bigger than its counterpart in SC2.
In any case, mappers need to be aware of appropriate third (and fourth) expansion distances and is easily one of the biggest things done wrong in a lot of maps (even the 'good' ones).
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:
On August 09 2012 07:14 iamcaustic wrote: I'm also glad this point has been brought up. For a little while now I've been talking about third bases, and how the current solution seems to be creating third bases to be more of a "second natural" in terms of its proximity and ease of defence. I think this method, while it allows defence against the Stephano-style roach aggression, contributes heavily to the passive, death ball-style of play that seems to plague StarCraft 2. The idea around defending these bases is to sit your big army in between the natural and third, and bounce back and forth wherever pressure is being applied. In other words, it's designed in a way that assumes death ball.
I wrote a blog post talking a bit about current maps like Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, and Daybreak, and how this 3 base paradigm affects the game. I'm honestly of the opinion that mapmakers haven't explored enough with the dynamic between choked/open areas in their terrain design, particularly as it pertains to base defence. Take a look at any of the maps I already mentioned in SC2, and then compare them with some Brood War examples:
In all of these BW examples, the thirds are positioned in a way that don't allow for easy bounce back between the third and natural, but the answer lay with the ability to defend the third with tight chokes. It's a terrain design that encourages splitting of the army to defend, and such splitting actually works (as opposed to just getting your army crushed) thanks to the chokes that prevent a larger army from utilizing its full potential. Consequently, it becomes more effective/desirable to rather send in smaller harassment groups, rather than brute forcing with a full army.
Surprisingly, we have yet to really see this concept attempted in tournament-level SC2 maps.
I agree that in general, SC2 maps are boring, especially compared to BW maps. However, I for one, cannot think of creative ways for Protoss to take a third otherwise. For Protoss to take an early/acceptable third(7-10 minutes), only basic gateway units, immortals, and stargate units are accessible to defend it. The nature of these units are somewhat death-ballish, especially sentries. Unlike BW, reavers(colossi) and templar are not really viable as a unit that can cost effectively defend a third. And perhaps this is a SC2 flaw(no Protoss unit can cost effectively defend against roaches alone, ie reaver, siege tank), but that's another story. Whatever the case, the fact is that all the BW maps you provided as examples would not let Protoss take a third in SC2.
On August 09 2012 07:14 iamcaustic wrote: I'm also glad this point has been brought up. For a little while now I've been talking about third bases, and how the current solution seems to be creating third bases to be more of a "second natural" in terms of its proximity and ease of defence. I think this method, while it allows defence against the Stephano-style roach aggression, contributes heavily to the passive, death ball-style of play that seems to plague StarCraft 2. The idea around defending these bases is to sit your big army in between the natural and third, and bounce back and forth wherever pressure is being applied. In other words, it's designed in a way that assumes death ball.
I wrote a blog post talking a bit about current maps like Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, and Daybreak, and how this 3 base paradigm affects the game. I'm honestly of the opinion that mapmakers haven't explored enough with the dynamic between choked/open areas in their terrain design, particularly as it pertains to base defence. Take a look at any of the maps I already mentioned in SC2, and then compare them with some Brood War examples:
In all of these BW examples, the thirds are positioned in a way that don't allow for easy bounce back between the third and natural, but the answer lay with the ability to defend the third with tight chokes. It's a terrain design that encourages splitting of the army to defend, and such splitting actually works (as opposed to just getting your army crushed) thanks to the chokes that prevent a larger army from utilizing its full potential. Consequently, it becomes more effective/desirable to rather send in smaller harassment groups, rather than brute forcing with a full army.
Surprisingly, we have yet to really see this concept attempted in tournament-level SC2 maps.
I agree that in general, SC2 maps are boring, especially compared to BW maps. However, I for one, cannot think of creative ways for Protoss to take a third otherwise. For Protoss to take an early/acceptable third(7-10 minutes), only basic gateway units, immortals, and stargate units are accessible to defend it. The nature of these units are somewhat death-ballish, especially sentries. Unlike BW, reavers(colossi) and templar are not really viable as a unit that can cost effectively defend a third. And perhaps this is a SC2 flaw(no Protoss unit can cost effectively defend against roaches alone, ie reaver, siege tank), but that's another story. Whatever the case, the fact is that all the BW maps you provided as examples would not let Protoss take a third in SC2.
I think part of it, too, is that in BW PvZ you can actually delay your third for quite a long time without it being harmful, just because protoss units, reaver/templar especially, are so cost efficient vs zerg early/mid game compositions (hydra/ling with fairly low amounts of lurkers) that it's ok to be behind economically. As a result, protoss players often take the third after they already have a large enough army that they can move out onto the map and engage the zerg army before it actually reaches the third, as opposed to the SC2 style of having to turtle hard to maintain the 3 bases.
On August 09 2012 07:14 iamcaustic wrote: I'm also glad this point has been brought up. For a little while now I've been talking about third bases, and how the current solution seems to be creating third bases to be more of a "second natural" in terms of its proximity and ease of defence. I think this method, while it allows defence against the Stephano-style roach aggression, contributes heavily to the passive, death ball-style of play that seems to plague StarCraft 2. The idea around defending these bases is to sit your big army in between the natural and third, and bounce back and forth wherever pressure is being applied. In other words, it's designed in a way that assumes death ball.
I wrote a blog post talking a bit about current maps like Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, and Daybreak, and how this 3 base paradigm affects the game. I'm honestly of the opinion that mapmakers haven't explored enough with the dynamic between choked/open areas in their terrain design, particularly as it pertains to base defence. Take a look at any of the maps I already mentioned in SC2, and then compare them with some Brood War examples:
[snip]
In all of these BW examples, the thirds are positioned in a way that don't allow for easy bounce back between the third and natural, but the answer lay with the ability to defend the third with tight chokes. It's a terrain design that encourages splitting of the army to defend, and such splitting actually works (as opposed to just getting your army crushed) thanks to the chokes that prevent a larger army from utilizing its full potential. Consequently, it becomes more effective/desirable to rather send in smaller harassment groups, rather than brute forcing with a full army.
Surprisingly, we have yet to really see this concept attempted in tournament-level SC2 maps.
BW doesn't work the same way as SC2 and to be honest when I see you start talking about death balls I begin to not take you seriously because deathballs are not a huge problem in sc2 anymore. SC2 is a lot more restricted than in BW with respect to how far your third can be from your base. For instance, here is a BW adaptation of Cloud Kingdom
The distance between the natural and the third, in game, is much bigger than its counterpart in SC2.
In any case, mappers need to be aware of appropriate third (and fourth) expansion distances and is easily one of the biggest things done wrong in a lot of maps (even the 'good' ones).
In that Cloud Kingdom BW version, I don't think the third really is farther - maybe slightly because the mains are bigger and push it to the side. But stuff in BW in general looks smaller (units, terrain features, etc) and the screen is more zoomed in, so distances can sometimes appear to be larger.
Anyway, that map sucks and isn't really a good example of an SC2 map that would work well in BW anyway (and I made it so I'm allowed to express that opinion lol)
I'm curious how much in base expos can be considered a solution to this problem, because while they have been shown to create passive games, (ie Crevasse, Calm Before the Storm) I think that by giving the easy expo, making the third more difficult would work as if it was positioned as a difficult to take natural, such that it can be more of a focus to defend because main/2nd are easier to defend... I'm curious how a revised Terminus style map would work out nowadays as well... also I think an extremely part of the third dynamics are the fourth, and that they must be made together, which is why it seems so difficult to get it right... And tp be clear I mostly mean this in the sense of pressuring the zerg before they get to 4 base, because at toss, once they get to 3 base their army can usually be enough to hold a fourth through power, but if zerg can get to 4/5 base too fast it makes it difficult for protoss to do anything without their own 4th.
I basically agree with that's been said. I think mappers need to make the thirds have smaller chokes rather than bringing them closer to the nat.
However I realized that almost all my concepts right now involve some sort of in-base expansion so it's not really applicable.
Concerning Entombed Valley: While it does seem extra passive, I want to bring up what I thought was a positive benefit of that. I feel it has encouraged innovation from Zerg players, who've started using mass drop play due to the easy to defend third. I won't elaborate on that, I just wanted to bring it up and see what anyone else thought about it.
On August 09 2012 07:14 iamcaustic wrote: I'm also glad this point has been brought up. For a little while now I've been talking about third bases, and how the current solution seems to be creating third bases to be more of a "second natural" in terms of its proximity and ease of defence. I think this method, while it allows defence against the Stephano-style roach aggression, contributes heavily to the passive, death ball-style of play that seems to plague StarCraft 2. The idea around defending these bases is to sit your big army in between the natural and third, and bounce back and forth wherever pressure is being applied. In other words, it's designed in a way that assumes death ball.
I wrote a blog post talking a bit about current maps like Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, and Daybreak, and how this 3 base paradigm affects the game. I'm honestly of the opinion that mapmakers haven't explored enough with the dynamic between choked/open areas in their terrain design, particularly as it pertains to base defence. Take a look at any of the maps I already mentioned in SC2, and then compare them with some Brood War examples:
[snip]
In all of these BW examples, the thirds are positioned in a way that don't allow for easy bounce back between the third and natural, but the answer lay with the ability to defend the third with tight chokes. It's a terrain design that encourages splitting of the army to defend, and such splitting actually works (as opposed to just getting your army crushed) thanks to the chokes that prevent a larger army from utilizing its full potential. Consequently, it becomes more effective/desirable to rather send in smaller harassment groups, rather than brute forcing with a full army.
Surprisingly, we have yet to really see this concept attempted in tournament-level SC2 maps.
BW doesn't work the same way as SC2 and to be honest when I see you start talking about death balls I begin to not take you seriously because deathballs are not a huge problem in sc2 anymore. SC2 is a lot more restricted than in BW with respect to how far your third can be from your base. For instance, here is a BW adaptation of Cloud Kingdom
The distance between the natural and the third, in game, is much bigger than its counterpart in SC2.
In any case, mappers need to be aware of appropriate third (and fourth) expansion distances and is easily one of the biggest things done wrong in a lot of maps (even the 'good' ones).
While I can agree that "BW doesn't work the same way as SC2", I find it a highly vague and disingenuous reason to dismiss a specific map design concept. I also can't take you seriously if you say death balls are not a huge problem in SC2 anymore. While we've seen glimpses of brilliance in some tournament-level games (some games by players like Sage and Hero come to mind), the de-facto standard in SC2 is still to move everything in one big group. Look at late-game PvZ; if it wasn't for warp prisms and the occasional warp-in round of zealots, everything would be completely clumped together on both sides. Terran mid-game on some maps tends to be rather dynamic by virtue of having to deal damage lest they get crushed by superior death balls, but mech compositions and/or certain maps like Metropolis still even have Terran sitting around death balling it up quite often.
That's not to say we don't see aggressive strategies and early wins in SC2, but anything outside of a 2-base all-in generally defaults to death ball. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise on that one -- we still see posts even on TL pop up from people suggesting their own ideas and solutions to "fix the death ball problem", and even the new unit designs in HotS are focused around "pulling supply from the death ball" in order to "break it up", to paraphrase Dustin Browder.
On August 09 2012 07:14 iamcaustic wrote: I'm also glad this point has been brought up. For a little while now I've been talking about third bases, and how the current solution seems to be creating third bases to be more of a "second natural" in terms of its proximity and ease of defence. I think this method, while it allows defence against the Stephano-style roach aggression, contributes heavily to the passive, death ball-style of play that seems to plague StarCraft 2. The idea around defending these bases is to sit your big army in between the natural and third, and bounce back and forth wherever pressure is being applied. In other words, it's designed in a way that assumes death ball.
I wrote a blog post talking a bit about current maps like Ohana, Cloud Kingdom, and Daybreak, and how this 3 base paradigm affects the game. I'm honestly of the opinion that mapmakers haven't explored enough with the dynamic between choked/open areas in their terrain design, particularly as it pertains to base defence. Take a look at any of the maps I already mentioned in SC2, and then compare them with some Brood War examples:
In all of these BW examples, the thirds are positioned in a way that don't allow for easy bounce back between the third and natural, but the answer lay with the ability to defend the third with tight chokes. It's a terrain design that encourages splitting of the army to defend, and such splitting actually works (as opposed to just getting your army crushed) thanks to the chokes that prevent a larger army from utilizing its full potential. Consequently, it becomes more effective/desirable to rather send in smaller harassment groups, rather than brute forcing with a full army.
Surprisingly, we have yet to really see this concept attempted in tournament-level SC2 maps.
I agree that in general, SC2 maps are boring, especially compared to BW maps. However, I for one, cannot think of creative ways for Protoss to take a third otherwise. For Protoss to take an early/acceptable third(7-10 minutes), only basic gateway units, immortals, and stargate units are accessible to defend it. The nature of these units are somewhat death-ballish, especially sentries. Unlike BW, reavers(colossi) and templar are not really viable as a unit that can cost effectively defend a third. And perhaps this is a SC2 flaw(no Protoss unit can cost effectively defend against roaches alone, ie reaver, siege tank), but that's another story. Whatever the case, the fact is that all the BW maps you provided as examples would not let Protoss take a third in SC2.
We've seen that photon cannons are capable of helping to hold natural bases even in SC2 (the FFE). With smaller chokes at a third, might it not be possible to consider that perhaps the answer in this "further away, more tightly choked third" concept for Protoss is to also utilize cannon defence at the third, on top of warp-in mechanics and forcefields? Taking queues from Brood War, essentially, while taking into account SC2 design.
On August 09 2012 09:16 Gfire wrote: I basically agree with that's been said. I think mappers need to make the thirds have smaller chokes rather than bringing them closer to the nat.
However I realized that almost all my concepts right now involve some sort of in-base expansion so it's not really applicable.
Concerning Entombed Valley: While it does seem extra passive, I want to bring up what I thought was a positive benefit of that. I feel it has encouraged innovation from Zerg players, who've started using mass drop play due to the easy to defend third. I won't elaborate on that, I just wanted to bring it up and see what anyone else thought about it.
That's certainly an interesting point. I do have to wonder, however, if we couldn't see a similar result from more defensible (albeit more spread out) bases. In theory, wouldn't it be the same concept: Zerg wouldn't be able to just brute-force their way in with a lot of units (e.g. mass roach), requiring an alternative approach to get in and deal damage?
I don't have any substance to back that, just theory crafting in my head.
One issue with that is that an attacker can bounce back and forth between the third and the natural faster than a defender can. Perhaps the 2 force-field choke makes up for it, but I'm not sure. I like the idea of thirds that are well choked and farther away, and expanding with cannons hasn't been explored yet (except in the recent sky toss posts).
On August 09 2012 09:16 Gfire wrote: I basically agree with that's been said. I think mappers need to make the thirds have smaller chokes rather than bringing them closer to the nat.
However I realized that almost all my concepts right now involve some sort of in-base expansion so it's not really applicable.
Concerning Entombed Valley: While it does seem extra passive, I want to bring up what I thought was a positive benefit of that. I feel it has encouraged innovation from Zerg players, who've started using mass drop play due to the easy to defend third. I won't elaborate on that, I just wanted to bring it up and see what anyone else thought about it.
That's certainly an interesting point. I do have to wonder, however, if we couldn't see a similar result from more defensible (albeit more spread out) bases. In theory, wouldn't it be the same concept: Zerg wouldn't be able to just brute-force their way in with a lot of units (e.g. mass roach), requiring an alternative approach to get in and deal damage?
I don't have any substance to back that, just theory crafting in my head.
Yes, in theory a map with a tight choke at the third (like entombed) but a longer travel distance between the main/nat/third would even more greatly encourage dropping and multi-pronged harassment, and stuff targeting the main and not just using drops to circumvent the choke.
Example: My map ESV Gauntlet AE, which not only follows this but also leaves two sides to the main greatly exposed to further encourage drops and air play.
Being a remake, and a map I started a while back, this wasn't exactly intentional but as with most things, my brain is now telling me to do what my gut told me to do several months ago.
On August 09 2012 09:53 Johanaz wrote: I´d like an expert opinion on these 3rds:
All spawns enabled so you choose a 3rd depending on where your opponent is. I put force fields in the pic to show the different choke sizes.
edit: the 2ff choke can equally be walled off with 2 gateways or 3 pylons
I think it's fine do to the long distance, but if I had made it I probably would have used 2x ramps instead of 3 at the 6/9 expos. I have a somewhat similar layout where I used 2x, but I think either is okay.
My favorite 3rd design by far is Daybreak and Metropolis, though the 3rd of Cloud Kingdom has small area to cover, it seems to require somewhat better positioning between natural and 3rd.
On August 09 2012 11:44 digmouse wrote: My favorite 3rd design by far is Daybreak and Metropolis, though the 3rd of Cloud Kingdom has small area to cover, it seems to require somewhat better positioning between natural and 3rd.
I think on CK the nexus takes up a lot of space in the path and is close to the ramp. You can't really utilize the space very well as the defender because your own nexus is blocking your units more than the opponent's. The choke points aren't very helpful do to this. The map's very tight, barely having enough space to do what's necessary, which was the main reason I wasn't so fond of it when it first showed up.
On August 09 2012 11:44 digmouse wrote: My favorite 3rd design by far is Daybreak and Metropolis, though the 3rd of Cloud Kingdom has small area to cover, it seems to require somewhat better positioning between natural and 3rd.
I think on CK the nexus takes up a lot of space in the path and is close to the ramp. You can't really utilize the space very well as the defender because your own nexus is blocking your units more than the opponent's. The choke points aren't very helpful do to this. The map's very tight, barely having enough space to do what's necessary, which was the main reason I wasn't so fond of it when it first showed up.
I've encountered that issue on a number of occasions, both to the detriment of myself and my opponents. Really sucks being the defender in those cases. It's definitely not my favourite third base.
Would that really stop the roach aggression issue in PvZ? I'd think the rocks would get almost insta-killed.
If they devote that many roaches then those roaches aren't at the third where they want to be. I think it helps just enough, just like the rocks on CK.
If I put rocks there, the thing is the central base will be pretty hard to reach. The point was a choice of thirds, which has been demonstrated on many test games. What I could do, instead of rocks, is make one of the entrances tighter. Thoughts?
Would that really stop the roach aggression issue in PvZ? I'd think the rocks would get almost insta-killed.
If they devote that many roaches then those roaches aren't at the third where they want to be. I think it helps just enough, just like the rocks on CK.
Meh, I think if its too hard to hold then you should make the chokes smaller. Right now its going to be on the hard(ish) side, but I don't think its unplayable. There are other concerns that I have with the map that come before the third, such as the middle bases, the linear fourth, and the strange allocation of space between the deadend expo and the highground fourth.
Would that really stop the roach aggression issue in PvZ? I'd think the rocks would get almost insta-killed.
If they devote that many roaches then those roaches aren't at the third where they want to be. I think it helps just enough, just like the rocks on CK.
Meh, I think if its too hard to hold then you should make the chokes smaller. Right now its going to be on the hard(ish) side, but I don't think its unplayable. There are other concerns that I have with the map that come before the third, such as the middle bases, the linear fourth, and the strange allocation of space between the deadend expo and the highground fourth.
Third is way more important than any of that, imo.
Would that really stop the roach aggression issue in PvZ? I'd think the rocks would get almost insta-killed.
If they devote that many roaches then those roaches aren't at the third where they want to be. I think it helps just enough, just like the rocks on CK.
Meh, I think if its too hard to hold then you should make the chokes smaller. Right now its going to be on the hard(ish) side, but I don't think its unplayable. There are other concerns that I have with the map that come before the third, such as the middle bases, the linear fourth, and the strange allocation of space between the deadend expo and the highground fourth.
Third is way more important than any of that, imo.
I suppose for "playability", the third is the most important. However the issues I listed should be fixed first, and then the third can be adjusted afterward so it is easier to defend, if necessary. Otherwise you'd adjust the third and then have to redo it again later if the other fundamental changes interfered (likely they would).
Would that really stop the roach aggression issue in PvZ? I'd think the rocks would get almost insta-killed.
If they devote that many roaches then those roaches aren't at the third where they want to be. I think it helps just enough, just like the rocks on CK.
Meh, I think if its too hard to hold then you should make the chokes smaller. Right now its going to be on the hard(ish) side, but I don't think its unplayable. There are other concerns that I have with the map that come before the third, such as the middle bases, the linear fourth, and the strange allocation of space between the deadend expo and the highground fourth.
Third is way more important than any of that, imo.
I suppose for "playability", the third is the most important. However the issues I listed should be fixed first, and then the third can be adjusted afterward so it is easier to defend, if necessary. Otherwise you'd adjust the third and then have to redo it again later if the other fundamental changes interfered (likely they would).
You may be right. I haven't looked closely at the rest of the map. (IMO the aesthetics are distracting.)
Would that really stop the roach aggression issue in PvZ? I'd think the rocks would get almost insta-killed.
If they devote that many roaches then those roaches aren't at the third where they want to be. I think it helps just enough, just like the rocks on CK.
Meh, I think if its too hard to hold then you should make the chokes smaller. Right now its going to be on the hard(ish) side, but I don't think its unplayable. There are other concerns that I have with the map that come before the third, such as the middle bases, the linear fourth, and the strange allocation of space between the deadend expo and the highground fourth.
Third is way more important than any of that, imo.
I suppose for "playability", the third is the most important. However the issues I listed should be fixed first, and then the third can be adjusted afterward so it is easier to defend, if necessary. Otherwise you'd adjust the third and then have to redo it again later if the other fundamental changes interfered (likely they would).
You may be right. I haven't looked closely at the rest of the map. (IMO the aesthetics are distracting.)
I don't think i'll be changing it, people like it so.
Would that really stop the roach aggression issue in PvZ? I'd think the rocks would get almost insta-killed.
If they devote that many roaches then those roaches aren't at the third where they want to be. I think it helps just enough, just like the rocks on CK.
Meh, I think if its too hard to hold then you should make the chokes smaller. Right now its going to be on the hard(ish) side, but I don't think its unplayable. There are other concerns that I have with the map that come before the third, such as the middle bases, the linear fourth, and the strange allocation of space between the deadend expo and the highground fourth.
Third is way more important than any of that, imo.
I suppose for "playability", the third is the most important. However the issues I listed should be fixed first, and then the third can be adjusted afterward so it is easier to defend, if necessary. Otherwise you'd adjust the third and then have to redo it again later if the other fundamental changes interfered (likely they would).
You may be right. I haven't looked closely at the rest of the map. (IMO the aesthetics are distracting.)
I don't think i'll be changing it, people like it so.
Well, sure, I just mean, that I've been too distracted with them to take a good look at the layout.
Eh, I think they could be a bit more polished, though, but the ideas are pretty interesting.
On August 09 2012 11:44 digmouse wrote: My favorite 3rd design by far is Daybreak and Metropolis, though the 3rd of Cloud Kingdom has small area to cover, it seems to require somewhat better positioning between natural and 3rd.
I think on CK the nexus takes up a lot of space in the path and is close to the ramp. You can't really utilize the space very well as the defender because your own nexus is blocking your units more than the opponent's. The choke points aren't very helpful do to this. The map's very tight, barely having enough space to do what's necessary, which was the main reason I wasn't so fond of it when it first showed up.
Exactly this, on most maps your 3rd nexus/cc/hatch doesn't interfere your army positioning, you don't put your base right in the middle of a potential attack/defense path, or the base is at the end of the attack/defend path. While on CK, your base is BETWEEN your army and the attack path, which means you have to put your army behind the base, if you position them between the natural and the 3rd. That's why 3rd sniping is so much more common on CK, you either have to wall of the natural ramp and focus on defending the 3rd, or face the danger of a run by to your natural, even main while your army is defending your 3rd.
The 6 o'clock 3rd or the one below the main? the former is not hard to defend on ground, but the distance to the natural is a bit long, the latter one shares the problem with Cloud Kingdom which is hard to position your army, but overall since the third choices are more variable I don't think it's a big problem. Just my two cents.
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:
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?
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.
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.
Where did you get the idea that the majority opinion was that the OP is incorrect?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/418_La%20Mancha.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/409_Pathfinder.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/460_New%20Bloody%20Ridge.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/462_New%20Empire%20of%20the%20Sun.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E5Mjj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GOMyc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gPZBg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1sej9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D0jZ3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JRZNk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/366Pa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZsK59.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBNMS.jpg)
