On February 13 2013 21:50 OxyGenesis wrote: Cross only would absolutely destroy this map, as I've said before, the whole purpose of a 4p map is for the close positions and the varied games that the different positions give, cross only may as well be a 2p map.
Just making it a 2P map is an even better solution. That said, I'd rather have it cross only than the potential flaws of allowing close.
I think close positions on this map work really well, the rocks are only there to delay pushes, by which point the terrain provides numerous flanking opportunities and counterattack paths. Anyway, time will tell I guess, congrats on getting it in GSTL and Assembly Scorp :D
The Terrain allows exactly one counter attack path which can be walled and is still really close. If T spawns CW to Z and is able to establish the fourth under the base of Z with tanks, it's going tob e rough I feel. But we will see.
On February 13 2013 21:50 OxyGenesis wrote: Cross only would absolutely destroy this map, as I've said before, the whole purpose of a 4p map is for the close positions and the varied games that the different positions give, cross only may as well be a 2p map.
Just making it a 2P map is an even better solution. That said, I'd rather have it cross only than the potential flaws of allowing close.
I think close positions on this map work really well, the rocks are only there to delay pushes, by which point the terrain provides numerous flanking opportunities and counterattack paths. Anyway, time will tell I guess, congrats on getting it in GSTL and Assembly Scorp :D
The Terrain allows exactly one counter attack path which can be walled and is still really close. If T spawns CW to Z and is able to establish the fourth under the base of Z with tanks, it's going tob e rough I feel. But we will see.
Could you explain what you mean with a diagram? Why would Z not just expand away from T?
I don't know why people don't like comic sans, I thinks its cool. Anyways about the map u show, I think the best solution would be to make the base that is near the main to be like on CK, where the minerals looked from the main, this will make it near impossible to mine from there as the Terran. Of course the Zerg should never let the Terran player set up a PF there in the 1st place since the area near the rocks is pretty open and units trying to go through the rocks will most likely get surrounded (or semi surrounded) and taken out.
I think the only thing Z has to stop that fourth PF is creep, they can guard the PF under construction with tanks that also guard their third. We'll see, but I'd put money on it that sooner or later people will either significantly alter some things or make this map cross only. I really don't think it's balanced in its current form.
That will never happen, Siskos. If the terran ever get a pfort up there as their 4th then the zerg deserve to lose. It's all fun to theory craft every single possibility but the chances of a good zerg every allowing a full base to get taken right underneath their main just isn't going to happen. Remember, this is HotS, there will be muta play, viper play, swarm host play, infestor play, hydra play, spinecrawler play and creep spread, a ton of stuff that will be able to push a terran if they decide to expand to that 4th.
Plus, if it's not cross positions maybe this tells the zerg he should try some 2 base all-in. Maybe hit that baneling bust before his mech gets too strong. Maybe go line/bling/muta and destroy the meching terran since he'll have to spread out so much. Just because there's the possibility of 1 thing to happen (which it won't) in close positions isn't enough to force it into cross positions only.
On February 14 2013 01:25 SidianTheBard wrote: That will never happen, Siskos. If the terran ever get a pfort up there as their 4th then the zerg deserve to lose. It's all fun to theory craft every single possibility but the chances of a good zerg every allowing a full base to get taken right underneath their main just isn't going to happen. Remember, this is HotS, there will be muta play, viper play, swarm host play, infestor play, hydra play, spinecrawler play and creep spread, a ton of stuff that will be able to push a terran if they decide to expand to that 4th.
I disagree, it will happen, it's very easy for T to establish that base because it's extremely close to the third of T. You can't just get a PF at that point on CK for instance because it's very far away from your normal third and Z's third is there but if T is pushing Z with mech, then T's army is already there so why not plant a PF there, surely Z doesn't want to take the third towards Z? T would take that route anyway to push Z so why not plant a PF there.
Plus, if it's not cross positions maybe this tells the zerg he should try some 2 base all-in. Maybe hit that baneling bust before his mech gets too strong. Maybe go line/bling/muta and destroy the meching terran since he'll have to spread out so much. Just because there's the possibility of 1 thing to happen (which it won't) in close positions isn't enough to force it into cross positions only.
You could say the same thing about metalopolis close positions. But like I said, we will see. I'm willing to bet money on it that close pos in TvZ will not be balanced.
The map's just kinda small for a 4p map. It is a bit short in close and also lacking in open space. I think it still makes for some fun gameplay overall.
But for a team league, in the pre-season (which should be used to test maps like the Proleague pre-season,) and in HotS where no one knows how anything will play out... I'm not sure it makes sense to complain about anything here. Let's wait and see what happens.
Well, sure you should always wait and see, I'm not advocating that it should be made cross only. However I am saying that my prediction is that they will eventually have to resort to that. I could be wrong, but I'm certain enough of it to bet money on it.
On February 14 2013 01:37 SiskosGoatee wrote: Well, sure you should always wait and see, I'm not advocating that it should be made cross only. However I am saying that my prediction is that they will eventually have to resort to that. I could be wrong, but I'm certain enough of it to bet money on it.
Well, that begs another question... Should we ever be forcing cross or just removing the maps when they get to that point?
I think new maps should be being introduced frequently enough that we can just swap it out with something else in that case.
As I stated on the first page, this is really a style of map that has fallen way out of favor with the advent of cross spawn only. The difference that this map brings is that close spawns has pretty much the least amount of positional imbalance of any map so far. If this map can't work with all spawns, then its pretty safe to say that no map can. I am going to dissent and say that I feel close spawns can and will work here. Players will need to play to the map. If we see a resurgence of older strategies or the creation of new ones then that is a good thing imo. I also feel that its pretty unlikely that a good zerg will put themselves in the above position, I mean 4 base v 4 base in ZvP or ZvT is already a bad sign for the zerg.
It's not even positional imbalance. It works almost as well the other way around. There are just expansions located on the optimal pushing path T takes to Z and that path is largely through chokes with very little open area. It's not an idea balance solution to allow T to push through essentially one giant choke through Z and get an expo in the meanwhile. I refer you back to the original Shakuras plateau. You can also say' Z is pretty bad if they let T take the smilyface base' but let's face it, it's hard to stop because it's as close to the base T took before it as it is to Z. T is about as bad if they let Z stop them from taking it.
Most the maps these days are either forced cross or much bigger than this... Whirlwind is the only 4p map with all spawns in the main pools these days.
The only good example I can think of is HotS Star Station, which I think is being used with all spawns possible for MLG. But there's only been one game on it since their map pool is huge (I guess pre-season sort of thing where they will narrow down the maps.)
I think it is a reasonable argument against close spawns since it really isn't any good counter-example... I can't confidently predict that there wouldn't be issues.
I'd say close spawns star station arguably has issues. I wouldn't be surprised if it was disabled at some point.
But yeah, it's hard to enable all spawns on a map this size. A way to do it is to increase the rush distance by forcing all things to go through the centre like Crevasse and Terminus did, but that forces everything through the centre.
This was something that was discussed extensively internally. The pickup of the map by major tournaments may yield negative results that force minor edits to be made and/or replacement maps made/found. Than again, the results may not. We shall see and are eager to gain more information (not theorycraft) about the map at this time.
I don't see T ever taking that base Sisko, you need to build the CC, clear the creep, move and land the cc and then morph it in to a PF without Z attacking at all for it to work, it's just way too close to the Z main. If Z ever lets that happen then they deserve to lose like Sidian said.
Close spawns on Star Station is a bit different as it's a mirrored not rotational so it doesn't have quite the same dynamics. I think the close spawns on SS could be pretty rough for Z but on Atlas with the rocks and the choosable 3rds it's much better. If that bet is still on Sisko, I would gladly take it as I don't think the issue you describe will be game breaking. That said, I won't rule out the possibility that somewhere along the line close positions being found as slightly imbalanced, it's just the asymmetrical nature of rotational maps. I think if a map is figured out enough for close spawns to be found imbalanced then it's time for the map to be removed from the pool, forcing cross positions is an ugly fix and the fact that it has been used in the past is just symptomatic of the dire state of WoL mapping.
On February 14 2013 03:06 OxyGenesis wrote: I don't see T ever taking that base Sisko, you need to build the CC, clear the creep, move and land the cc and then morph it in to a PF without Z attacking at all for it to work, it's just way too close to the Z main. If Z ever lets that happen then they deserve to lose like Sidian said.
Yes, and you want it to be close to their main. What can Z honestly do about it? If they could stop you from taking that third they have the capacity to attack your third and kill you. If Z can stop you from taking that fourth, the next step is Z being able to stop you from taking your own third which is an inch away.
Close spawns on Star Station is a bit different as it's a mirrored not rotational so it doesn't have quite the same dynamics. I think the close spawns on SS could be pretty rough for Z but on Atlas with the rocks and the choosable 3rds it's much better. If that bet is still on Sisko, I would gladly take it as I don't think the issue you describe will be game breaking. That said, I won't rule out the possibility that somewhere along the line close positions being found as slightly imbalanced, it's just the asymmetrical nature of rotational maps. I think if a map is figured out enough for close spawns to be found imbalanced then it's time for the map to be removed from the pool, forcing cross positions is an ugly fix and the fact that it has been used in the past is just symptomatic of the dire state of WoL mapping.
Well, I'd bet, but the point is that this bet is flawed because you never win. It's like betting one 'man will one day set foot on Mars'. If you bet in favour you can't ever lose because you can always say 'it hasn't happened yet' right, we need to establish a timeframe wherein this imbalance becomes apparent or not? Any case, name your time, I'm willing to put 50 eur down on this for good sport.
And I don't think the issue is radial symmetry, the issue is complete lack of openness. The map gives T a single path to push to Z where Z has no single chance of flanking T, on top of that, there are expansions on that path T can take as they push through it.
I actually felt like quantifying this issue a little since I apparently like fancy kindergarten graphics:
The issue of the contested base that T can secure that is close to Z is 'how far can it be away from T's third/natural'. The closer it lies to it the more it just becomes 'the same base', in this case they are very close, which means that it is only marginally easier for Z to deny that fourth as it is to deny T's very own third. THe thing with most maps is that they are so far away from each other that it is so much easier for Z to deny such a base that it becomes unrealistic to take it. Of course there is a certain subjective value of distance where this becomes an issue but I feel this map crosses it, the bases are so close together that if there existed an easy way for Z to deny that fourth (there is no BW high ground advantage, let's not forget, also, locusts do not fly). That easy way could also be used to deny T's third or even their natural.
I think hive timing is something that might be important w/ regards to this. Broodlords on the highground could probably deny that base reasonably well - assuming they're out in time. I can see a few other scenarios where you might be able to stop it.. but I agree it might be an issue. We'll see.
EPT![[image loading]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-fhEZkuO2Vd8/URuslWHEsSI/AAAAAAAABK4/ENiqD1c6lU8/s730/atlas%2520stratmap.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZcXeBZ6i5pE/URvuw_CaPjI/AAAAAAAABLI/CrFvmx3IZQg/s0/atlas%2520stratmap2.jpg)
