|
On January 22 2013 02:49 Sumadin wrote:
Well he is not exactly basing his intentions on established map science then... Please, 'science' is hardly the word appropriate for this and you know it.
do you know how long we have to go back to find 2 player maps with just 4.5 bases on ladder? Season ONE!! The 'half' base on tihs map has like 85% of a full base. It's basically Ohana in this respect but it has a lot more interesting an expansion layout.
You rememper the map pool of utter garbage that everyone critized? And they were all trashed even by Blizzard of yester-yesteryear after just one season baring Xelnaga caverns. And I still like Steppes of War, Metalopolis with close positions and Xel'Naga Caverns and Desert Oasis more than I do these über defensive maps like Ohana.
|
On January 22 2013 02:49 Sumadin wrote:
Well he is not exactly basing his intentions on established map science then... do you know how long we have to go back to find 2 player maps with just 4.5 bases on ladder? Season ONE!! You rememper the map pool of utter garbage that everyone critized? And they were all trashed even by Blizzard of yester-yesteryear after just one season baring Xelnaga caverns.
I find myself agreeing with Siskosgoatee on this one - science is not the appropriate term for this topic, because although theories can be developed they're based, more than anything else, on subjective opinion, and not objective data. There is data(such as win-rates, rush distances, etc.) that is used, but why is one specific datum-point more valuable than another?
Aside from that, you're making a critical logical fallacy - that somehow the quality of a map is tied to how many bases it has. I recall a similar comment regarding Steppes of War, which by this logic would actually be a better map than this. Most importantly, it's this general attitude that's stifled community maps for so long, to a point I've found sickening and disheartening. If you don't like a map, that's fine, but let it run its course and see what happens anyway.
|
I like the map and the general concepts used and I am excited to see them play out, but I forsee some... frustrating games of PvP and PvZ.
The good news is that players will need to adjust build orders to the odd amounts of resources at the natural, so there may be timings here that we do not know about.
|
Partial gold bases are too complicated to explain away in a sentence. It has so many ramifications viewed in the framework of how we understand the game with current standard maps and bases, and more we don't know yet because we don't know what the metagame would be on this map.
I think the biggest thing is that you get a huge booster income from your expansion at first, sort of like adding +C to your income/worker curve. This creates new timings because it's like you go from 16 workers to 21.6 workers instead of 16 to 20 workers. (4 * 7/5) So everything subsequent to your expansion completing is bumped up 10-20 seconds, and it creates new build order possibilities. Also note that with 7 workers you get a huge income/worker (mining only gold and HYG), but if you add 8 more workers you get a far lower income/worker increase. So maybe it opens up the opportunity for crazy all in tech-based attacks based off 3.5 gases and 1.35 bases of minerals, for the worker price of 1.32 bases. In other words, that income/worker ratio is nuts!
Even without stopping at 29 workers, it still totally revamps build orders. But then the high yield stuff also runs out sooner, so it has a catch. This is the other big thing. In a way it puts extra pressure on you to take your 3rd, more so than normal, if you want to play any kind of long game.
|
On January 22 2013 00:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it  How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map. I think this is the purpose of this map, it's meant to force people to do 2base pushes and potentially expand behind it. This has been the overall flow of the GSL this season by also basically putting rocks on all the thirds on older maps.
The rocks are going on the far choke of the thirds... They should be easier to hold now.
|
On January 22 2013 03:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 02:49 Sumadin wrote:
Well he is not exactly basing his intentions on established map science then... Please, 'science' is hardly the word appropriate for this and you know it. Show nested quote +do you know how long we have to go back to find 2 player maps with just 4.5 bases on ladder? Season ONE!! The 'half' base on tihs map has like 85% of a full base. It's basically Ohana in this respect but it has a lot more interesting an expansion layout. Show nested quote +You rememper the map pool of utter garbage that everyone critized? And they were all trashed even by Blizzard of yester-yesteryear after just one season baring Xelnaga caverns. And I still like Steppes of War, Metalopolis with close positions and Xel'Naga Caverns and Desert Oasis more than I do these über defensive maps like Ohana.
On January 22 2013 03:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 02:49 Sumadin wrote:
Well he is not exactly basing his intentions on established map science then... do you know how long we have to go back to find 2 player maps with just 4.5 bases on ladder? Season ONE!! You rememper the map pool of utter garbage that everyone critized? And they were all trashed even by Blizzard of yester-yesteryear after just one season baring Xelnaga caverns. I find myself agreeing with Siskosgoatee on this one - science is not the appropriate term for this topic, because although theories can be developed they're based, more than anything else, on subjective opinion, and not objective data. There is data(such as win-rates, rush distances, etc.) that is used, but why is one specific datum-point more valuable than another? Aside from that, you're making a critical logical fallacy - that somehow the quality of a map is tied to how many bases it has. I recall a similar comment regarding Steppes of War, which by this logic would actually be a better map than this. Most importantly, it's this general attitude that's stifled community maps for so long, to a point I've found sickening and disheartening. If you don't like a map, that's fine, but let it run its course and see what happens anyway.
Fine guys call it map concensus if you will or whatever. Basicly it goes against everything we have been working with over the last 2 years, and kinda scales back to what we had before that, which was stuff we hated.
If you want me to go deeper in my comparasion ill go deeper. My choice of comparasion will be Jungle basin.
+ Show Spoiler +
Both of the maps sports an in-house expansion whose safety can be compromised by breaking down rocks. There is a high ground third that can be assaulted from multible chokes and have an unusual long distance from the main.
Granted there are still mayor differences in the way the maps do it, but alot of the same stuff appears and Jungle basin was by Blizzards own words their worst map at the time, and is to this day one of just 2 maps pulled from ladder midseason. 2 base tank pushes was extremely potent against Zerg and i wonder how long it takes before terrans will do them again on this map. If a terran gets his siege tanks and potentially bunkers up there then that third will not go up, and he will be able to follow all the moves of the Zerg.
It is not that i don't think this map can be better than JB. I just have to wonder if the differences between the maps are enough to make the difference between one of the biggest map disasters ever vs a balanced and decent map.
|
|
|
I do enjoy that in order to take a third the map pushes you forward instead of curving around the edges...Most macro maps will curve expansions around the edges but this is OBVIOUSLY designed to be more chaotic...which is totally fucking awesome considering how stale the macro meta-game is at the moment.
I like the concept of a .75 base instead of a half base. Pretty kick ass, as it will open up all sorts of new timings with accelerated income.
There is probably room for another ".75" base somewhere on the map, especially considering how difficult it will be to control the center bases.
|
Well .75 bases aren't that weird; there are 6m1hyg bases on tons of maps. This is just a slight variation on it. A forward third isn't revolutionary either, tons of maps have that as well.
What's cool is that the GSL is actually, finally, (OMG) using a map that takes a few chances. They haven't done that since the earliest seasons.
|
A lot changed with regards to balance of units since Jungle Basin, so it's fairly difficult to tell how things will play out just by comparing base count and layout stuff. Or maybe it isn't since players are supposed to adjust their strategy and stuff towards the map (something that has been lacking a bit as far as I can tell), but I guess we'll find out.
|
I have some serious questions about expanding, especially for Zerg.. but all I can say is that I hope the map works! It's unusual that I don't any suggestions for a map, but I don't know what to change. It might work out for balance. I hope the middle bases are useful.
|
On January 22 2013 02:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 01:45 lorestarcraft wrote:
This gets map gets worse the more I look at it. So awful. It's not creative, it's just bad. Even on maps where the third is harder, it still has to be possible to take it. Ripping half of the strats out of the playbook doesn't improve play. Why doesn't someone from GOM look at the awesome and creative community maps and pick one? They are 10 times better and balanced. Seriously, I am so mad at this. Because there are apparently people that really like it? Look at this thread for instance? Why do people always think that everyone shares their opinion. So this is a map that you don't like? Great, it's a free internet, your opinion is your prerogative. I think the map is original, I don't know yet if it will be good but it seeks to achieve a certain specific thing and it seems to do that well. That's my opinion. This is honestly a plague infesting that mapmaking commuity, so many people are like 'Oh man, this map pool of this tournament sucks because it has at least 3 maps I don't like'. Well, there will always be at least 3 you don 't like because everyone likes different maps. Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 02:28 docvoc wrote:On January 22 2013 01:52 NewSunshine wrote:
Don't see the point of the 2 gold minerals, but this type of map is long overdue. I like the way the lowground runs across the entire map stylistically, but I also like the general layout of the expansions. The overview's slightly headache-inducing, but overall I approve. I like the map overall, but I feel like the reintroduction of gold bases is a bad idea, that said, I'm not a map maker. Maybe he has an intended purpose for them. The purpose is clear, he wants it to yield less income than a normal gold base but more than a normal blue base?
Some maps have solid concepts, some don't. I think this one doesn't, I didn't say no one else likes it, I said I don't. Plus I know many other community are more creative and better in concept.
|
On January 22 2013 11:58 lorestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 02:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 22 2013 01:45 lorestarcraft wrote:
This gets map gets worse the more I look at it. So awful. It's not creative, it's just bad. Even on maps where the third is harder, it still has to be possible to take it. Ripping half of the strats out of the playbook doesn't improve play. Why doesn't someone from GOM look at the awesome and creative community maps and pick one? They are 10 times better and balanced. Seriously, I am so mad at this. Because there are apparently people that really like it? Look at this thread for instance? Why do people always think that everyone shares their opinion. So this is a map that you don't like? Great, it's a free internet, your opinion is your prerogative. I think the map is original, I don't know yet if it will be good but it seeks to achieve a certain specific thing and it seems to do that well. That's my opinion. This is honestly a plague infesting that mapmaking commuity, so many people are like 'Oh man, this map pool of this tournament sucks because it has at least 3 maps I don't like'. Well, there will always be at least 3 you don 't like because everyone likes different maps. On January 22 2013 02:28 docvoc wrote:On January 22 2013 01:52 NewSunshine wrote:
Don't see the point of the 2 gold minerals, but this type of map is long overdue. I like the way the lowground runs across the entire map stylistically, but I also like the general layout of the expansions. The overview's slightly headache-inducing, but overall I approve. I like the map overall, but I feel like the reintroduction of gold bases is a bad idea, that said, I'm not a map maker. Maybe he has an intended purpose for them. The purpose is clear, he wants it to yield less income than a normal gold base but more than a normal blue base? Some maps have solid concepts, some don't. I think this one doesn't, I didn't say no one else likes it, I said I don't. Plus I know many other community are more creative and better in concept. Okay, so you're sad and angry at the GSL because they take a map you personally don't like while you are well aware that others like it, do I get that right?
|
I just wanted to say, btw,
Thanks for posting ATTx.
|
On January 22 2013 03:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 02:49 Sumadin wrote:
Well he is not exactly basing his intentions on established map science then... do you know how long we have to go back to find 2 player maps with just 4.5 bases on ladder? Season ONE!! You rememper the map pool of utter garbage that everyone critized? And they were all trashed even by Blizzard of yester-yesteryear after just one season baring Xelnaga caverns. I find myself agreeing with Siskosgoatee on this one - science is not the appropriate term for this topic, because although theories can be developed they're based, more than anything else, on subjective opinion, and not objective data. There is data(such as win-rates, rush distances, etc.) that is used, but why is one specific datum-point more valuable than another? Aside from that, you're making a critical logical fallacy - that somehow the quality of a map is tied to how many bases it has. I recall a similar comment regarding Steppes of War, which by this logic would actually be a better map than this. Most importantly, it's this general attitude that's stifled community maps for so long, to a point I've found sickening and disheartening. If you don't like a map, that's fine, but let it run its course and see what happens anyway.
I think science is a fine word to describe map making, it's just not a perfect science. I think it's comparable to psychology or social science where you're not dealing with hard facts, figures and absolutes but rather you look at trends and form hypothese which require testing to validate. The 'quality' of a map is tied to how many bases it has, too few leads to short 1 dimensional games, too many likely leads to deathbally games, however that's clearly just 1 variable in a vast web of interacting variables. I completely agree with you when you say new maps should be allowed to run their course before being dismissed, unless something is obviously broken new ideas can have unexpected results.
|
On January 22 2013 22:17 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 03:33 NewSunshine wrote:On January 22 2013 02:49 Sumadin wrote:
Well he is not exactly basing his intentions on established map science then... do you know how long we have to go back to find 2 player maps with just 4.5 bases on ladder? Season ONE!! You rememper the map pool of utter garbage that everyone critized? And they were all trashed even by Blizzard of yester-yesteryear after just one season baring Xelnaga caverns. I find myself agreeing with Siskosgoatee on this one - science is not the appropriate term for this topic, because although theories can be developed they're based, more than anything else, on subjective opinion, and not objective data. There is data(such as win-rates, rush distances, etc.) that is used, but why is one specific datum-point more valuable than another? Aside from that, you're making a critical logical fallacy - that somehow the quality of a map is tied to how many bases it has. I recall a similar comment regarding Steppes of War, which by this logic would actually be a better map than this. Most importantly, it's this general attitude that's stifled community maps for so long, to a point I've found sickening and disheartening. If you don't like a map, that's fine, but let it run its course and see what happens anyway. I think science is a fine word to describe map making, it's just not a perfect science No it's not
I think it's comparable to psychology or social science where you're not dealing with hard facts, figures and absolutes but rather you look at trends and form hypothese which require testing to validate. As soft as social sciences are and how much they border on pseudoscience, they still have controlled experiments and peer review and aren't just anything goes. Mapmaking is even below that. Call me back when there are controlled experiments to test things and I reconsider.
The 'quality' of a map is tied to how many bases it has, too few leads to short 1 dimensional games, too many likely leads to deathbally games See, and if this was science you'd refer to a study which indicated that, but you don't, because it's not science. It's conventional wisdom.
|
Call me back when there are controlled experiments to test things and I reconsider.
You mean, like, games...?
|
On January 22 2013 22:43 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +Call me back when there are controlled experiments to test things and I reconsider. You mean, like, games...? controlled experiments.
Do you know the scientific basis and significance of a controlled experiment?
|
I have just seen this map for the first time in GSL and I just love the concept of economically strange bases.
It's realy a new level of interesting, when the timings differ. The amount of different games that lie under the surface of SC2 is almost endless - the only thing you need to do is stop being so stubborn with "it has to be like that". I just can't comprehend why no tournament has ever gone this way any sooner.
|
On January 22 2013 22:46 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:43 EatThePath wrote:Call me back when there are controlled experiments to test things and I reconsider. You mean, like, games...? controlled experiments. Do you know the scientific basis and significance of a controlled experiment?
You obviously do, so why not share your knowledge instead of bashing others? I doubt everyone in here are scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/6/64/Jungle_Basin.jpg)
