[M] (2) Icarus

On January 21 2013 15:26 lorestarcraft wrote:
I predict this will last 1 season in GSL

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

On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:


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.

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.

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.

On January 22 2013 02:28 docvoc wrote:

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.

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.

On January 22 2013 00:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:
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.

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.

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.

On January 22 2013 00:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:
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.

On January 22 2013 03:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Please, 'science' is hardly the word appropriate for this and you know it.

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.

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:

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.

On January 22 2013 02:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:
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.


The purpose is clear, he wants it to yield less income than a normal gold base but more than a normal blue base?

On January 22 2013 11:58 lorestarcraft wrote:


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 03:33 NewSunshine wrote:

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.

On January 22 2013 22:17 OxyGenesis wrote:


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

Call me back when there are controlled experiments to test things and I reconsider.

On January 22 2013 22:43 EatThePath wrote:

You mean, like, games...?

On January 22 2013 22:46 SiskosGoatee wrote:
controlled experiments.

Do you know the scientific basis and significance of a controlled experiment?

On January 22 2013 23:20 ScorpSCII wrote:

You obviously do, so why not share your knowledge instead of bashing others? I doubt everyone in here are scientists.

On January 23 2013 00:42 Qikz wrote:
Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc.

On January 23 2013 00:42 Qikz wrote:


I mentioned this in a thread about map stagnation a while ago, but it mainly comes down to tournaments worrying the players won't want to bother trying to adapt in which case the players won't bother signing up for their tournaments anymore.

The other issue is with the non Korean tournaments they usually have a map pool for their entire season which lasts the entire year. This leads to even bigger problems as they're stuck with the same maps all year.

Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc.

On January 23 2013 02:23 Barrin wrote:
Mapmaking is more like architecture or city planning than science. Yes the scientific method helps us develop better maps but that's truly not all there is to it.

I really just can't see T or P catching up to a Z without another gas at that backdoor nat.

On January 21 2013 15:26 lorestarcraft wrote:
I predict this will last 1 season in GSL

On January 23 2013 02:11 opisska wrote:


I see your point, but what about the GSL? They have such an insane prize pool and prestige that anyone wiull sign up if they were running the whole thing on blood bath. I agree that what they do now seems inspired by the Proleague, but still find it hard to comprehened why they did not experiment with maps earlier - considering how amazingly progressive and forward GOMTV is about other things.

On January 22 2013 03:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:


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.

On January 23 2013 03:38 EatThePath wrote:

Actually one of there first maps was such a venture. Tal'Darim Altar had a 3rd base with 750-value mineral patches. Blizzard instead made a standard base with rocks on it when they put it on ladder. This basically forced GOM's hand for subsequent seasons to use the ladder version that people were practicing on. And that set a precedent for standard is the standard, which is a damn shame. Two years lost.

On January 23 2013 03:57 Sumadin wrote:


Well Blizzard still enforces this rule for their ladder maps. Generally speaking you probably shouldn't try to alter expansion values, if you want your map on ladder.

Still regarding Kespa vs Gom in who is the most daring in map selection. Kespa has a huge advantage really, their format. They could bring in trash like Metropolis or Calm before the storm in their pool and it wouldn't pose much of a problem. It would be pure ZvZ or PvP respectively but in terms of deciding a winning team not really. Their format doesn't rely on map balance it relies on each teams decisionmaking when choosing players for certain maps.

Gom however with a more traditional format can't really get away with keeping maps so imbalanced in for more than a season of a time. And yea i fear this map may be one of those that leave after just one season. Even if they were to do a huge mappool overhaul at HOTS release.

On January 23 2013 03:49 EatThePath wrote:
As you allude to, sisko, you don't need controlled experiments to do science.

Obviously mapmaking isn't an "exact science" in practice, but I think we should view it as a subset of game design, which is as analytical as you want it to be.

"Anything goes" is a self-deception. "Anything untested may or may not go" is a fundamental starting point.

I'm sure we don't disagree. I just want to point out that you don't have to have an abundance of certainty as a requirement to be scientific about a topic.

I would prefer everybody look at mapmaking as a primarily scientific project, not an artistic one.

Balance is not a matter of taste. Everything beyond balance is, though. (Incidentally, this is why games should be difficult to master, or else the space of interesting variations is rapidly mined out. Or worse, a game is mathematically solved and can be played by strict algorithm.)

The job of a mapmaker, in my mind, is foremost to make an interesting and fair game component, not a pretty gewgaw.

On January 23 2013 04:17 EatThePath wrote:
Science only needs falsifiability.

Nothing we can do proves anything, it's all correlations. Isolating variables just lets you combine Occam's razor and statistics to amplify the dependability of your theories.

Is there a relevant thread to which we can move this discussion? I'm game to continue this if you want to, but I don't want to sidetrack this map thread too much. ^^

The job of a mapmaker, in my mind, is foremost to make an interesting and fair game component, not a pretty gewgaw. You have to admit that the one precedes the other in relevance in competitive gaming.

About game design, popular game design is about as scientific as marketing, and amounts to as much. There is an entirely different academic class of game design that has nothing to do with fun, per se, and is comparable to economics or computer science. I admit that competitive gaming requires fun, but it requires analysis more than a catchy idea. (Assuming we have a popular game to begin with.)

On January 23 2013 10:21 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It's completely unfair to say that market research is just conventional wisdom. How can you claim to know the practice of marketers? AB testing is a definition of an experiment with as many variables as possible held constant...

Much of what I do in my mapping process is related to trying multiple ideas and seeing which is best received. While we only have real exposure within this forum, it's still something worth going off of.

Here's what I can say about a map that is well received here: People who care about maps enough to spend time here, and people who have spent time trying to make maps prefer this concept to others that have been presented. That is non-trivial.

Even if this were true, mapping doesn't have it. Unless you can give me an experiment that disproves the hypothesis that Antiga Shipyard is a terribad map.

On January 23 2013 10:28 EatThePath wrote:
Are you trying to convince me? Or yourself? We differ on epistemology, not the scientific method and how to use it, although it seems like you put it in an artificial box.


Someone would have to be a fool to make a scientific claim using that language. I don't just mean terribad, I take your point. But clearly "bad" is a wishywashy notion in the first place. If you could pin that down, then the claim "Antiga Shipyard is bad" (which would be a special case of a larger theory of what is good and bad in a map) is readily decidable. Of course it may be unfeasible to attain conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Therefore it'd be much more useful and approachable to make a claim about things within the bounds of our current understanding. For example, "there is no way to have a stable 4base vs 4base game on Antiga Shipyard in any matchup." You might protest that this could never be demonstrated to satisfaction. I'd probably agree. But that's the point of science: it doesn't provide answers, just best guesses so far, with the door always open for a redrawing of the case.[/quote[Even if you could frmulate a definition of 'stable 4base game' and come with some wild algorithm that takes in a map file and produces the probability of this happening which would be worth a Fields medal of itself for the sheer monumental achievement. Let's say it's theoretically possible.

It's still not actually used currently in the making of maps, so making maps is currently not a science No scientific methodology, even if it's theoretically possible, is currently employed, it's wet fingerwork.

On January 23 2013 10:49 Alryk wrote:
I think we can use a mix of agressive and macro maps. It mixes things up, as long as there aren't huge flaws.

On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:


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.

On January 23 2013 18:35 iamcaustic wrote:
I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like.


Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea?

On January 23 2013 21:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
It's personal, it is a problem to me. I don't like it, I often get mined out on Ohana. It's one of my least liked maps for a number of reasons, one being the amount of bases. Together with the extremely linear expansion progression.

THis is what I liked more about Korhal Compound though I would not mind 2 centre half bases added to the map on the lowground. But his fifth could also be your fourth or even third. Same with Dual Sight, it wasn't clear which gold was whose, it adds something interesting when you can expand both ways.

To put it like this, any map good for mech is a bad map in my opinion because it encourages turtly play and discourages multi pronged aggression and doesn't have a lot of bases, which is of course something that enables mech.

On January 23 2013 22:10 iamcaustic wrote:

The map is pretty basic and straightforward for sure, but most games don't even get to mining out 5 bases, if you're even lucky to reach 5 bases in the first place. Saying you often get mined out on Ohana is either an extreme exaggeration or your opponents never attack you for some reason. Maybe you mine out 3 bases and have a hard time taking a 4th/5th, but that's very different from mining out the map. 5 bases provide enough resources to get you hour-long games, it's just a matter of collecting all the resources.

On January 23 2013 22:21 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I beg to differ, I get mined out because I attack a lot and force a lot of engagements and thereby keep losing units. IT's nt an exaggeration, I'm very comfortable playing a 90 SCV or 110 probe/drone game and Ohana leaves me mined out.

As far as progamers go, they adapt to Ohana, they tend t play styles that get mined out less quickly because you expand slower with it, mech and other related deathballish styles like BL/Infestor are quite popular there simply because the map doesn't give you the amount of bases for proper muta/ling/bane which requires you to expand more quickly and rely on the mobility of your army to defend. 5 Base Zerg is pretty much required for good muta/ling/bane ZvT.

Personally, I think all those deathballish and passive playstyles are extremely boring to watch which is sort of what a low expo game forces.

On January 24 2013 00:35 OxyGenesis wrote:


If you want to make maps for the level of the game that you play then that's fine, but we're talking about competitive maps at the pro level. Ohana evidently plays out fine and is well liked at the pro level.

Your whole view of mapping seems to be from the very narrow point of view of your own experience playing the game. Instead, why don't you try taking a step back and look at the discipline of map design in a broader sense?

If you want to conclude that map making isn't a science because we as map makers don't look at it scientifically then I guess you'd be right. But the fact that in theory, given the right expertise/time/money, you could write a computer program that simulates hundreds of thousands of games on a map and outputs meaningful data that could be used to advance map design to me indicates that 'science' isn't that far off.

Evidently the way we see map design is much closer to architects than scientists, but I don't think that discounts the ability for someone to look at it scientifically if they wanted to.

On January 23 2013 17:02 neptunusfisk wrote:
No, mapmaking is not science. Move on.

On January 24 2013 02:00 EatThePath wrote:

Lol. Oh okay. Thanks.

Sisko I'm curious what you think of cosmology. In that field there's nothing to do but look at data.

Are you trying to say that until a given field has a particular floor of knowledge established, it's not science? When did biology become a science and not "looking at animals"?

nice offtopic talk no one cares about

On January 23 2013 22:21 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I beg to differ, I get mined out because I attack a lot and force a lot of engagements and thereby keep losing units. IT's nt an exaggeration, I'm very comfortable playing a 90 SCV or 110 probe/drone game and Ohana leaves me mined out.

As far as progamers go, they adapt to Ohana, they tend t play styles that get mined out less quickly because you expand slower with it, mech and other related deathballish styles like BL/Infestor are quite popular there simply because the map doesn't give you the amount of bases for proper muta/ling/bane which requires you to expand more quickly and rely on the mobility of your army to defend. 5 Base Zerg is pretty much required for good muta/ling/bane ZvT.

Personally, I think all those deathballish and passive playstyles are extremely boring to watch which is sort of what a low expo game forces.

On January 24 2013 08:11 iamcaustic wrote:

Forgive me, but I'm highly skeptical of your claims. Do you have a few replays you could share? I'm genuinely curious how someone could mine out Ohana on a consistent basis, namely the style of play involved that doesn't have their opponent tap out before that point. Anyway, if you're willing, just shoot me a PM as I don't wanna derail this thread any further.

On January 24 2013 13:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Of course I can't provide a replay if SC2Gears doesn't allow me to search on it, you expect me to go through every game I played on Ohana on 8x to see if it's mined out?

I'm sure it's a common occurence for you to get a flock of phoenices chain fungalled above a Zerg third on Daybreak, could you provide me a replay of that?

On January 24 2013 14:19 iamcaustic wrote:

You said it happened often. Just take a quick look at the game length of 5 to 10 Ohana replays and you should be able to find at least one (should be at least 40 mins or more in a mined out game). Or are you now saying it's not as common as you claimed before?

I mean, if you're just bullshitting everyone again like you usually do then that's fine; just say so. No hard feelings man, you have no obligation to appease me.

On January 24 2013 14:29 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Okay, let's say this happens in 1/10 games for me on OHana, which is actually quite close to the truth. You cannot expect me to 8x 10 Ohana 40 minute replays on average to find this one replay. It takes 5 minutes to 8x a 40 minute replay, that's 50 minutes of time for 10, ignoring startup and load time of replays. That's just too much time.

Again, I'm sure it's quite common for you to get your phoenices fungalled over the third on daybreak, find me a replay of that. It''s also quite common for me and I can't produce a replay of that, it's too much work.

On January 24 2013 15:06 EatThePath wrote:
By the way everybody, HuK vs Sniper in a few hours, opening on Icarus in Code S. Can't wait!

On January 31 2013 19:48 SiskosGoatee wrote:
The map seems to generate some really interesting games in the GSL thus far and players do seem to pick it a lot even though it's unique. Good map I feel, too early to talk about balance but it does spice the game up.

On February 01 2013 00:29 lorestarcraft wrote:

Pretty much all the games on it have been retarded. This is not where maps should go.

On February 02 2013 04:32 Barrin wrote:

double bad choice of wording

This map is on the fringe... it could hardly be more different. It's actually barely on the fringe, I'd call it wonky tbh.

It does give interesting maps a bad name.. we're supposed to get there slowly.

Adding this map to the GSL at this point in time is what I would do if I wanted to encourage shunning of "different" maps in the future.

Like a kid tentative to learn to swim, dipping his feet in the pool for an hour or two... and then doing a dive bomb in the deep end. If he almost drowns, who can blame him for not wanting to be anywhere near a pool of water for a while?

On February 02 2013 04:32 Barrin wrote:

double bad choice of wording

This map is on the fringe... it could hardly be more different. It's actually barely on the fringe, I'd call it wonky tbh

It does give interesting maps a bad name.. we're supposed to get there slowly.

Adding this map to the GSL at this point in time is what I would do if I wanted to encourage shunning of "different" maps in the future.

Like a kid tentative to learn to swim, dipping his feet in the pool for an hour or two... and then doing a dive bomb in the deep end. If he almost drowns, who can blame him for not wanting to be anywhere near a pool of water for a while?

On February 02 2013 06:52 Doominator10 wrote:
can we get a link to some of the Vods with this map in tournaments? Or are all the games paid for only?

On February 02 2013 07:10 iamcaustic wrote:

Being the GSL, all the VODs are paid only. If you want, you can purchase a ticket at gomtv.net

On February 02 2013 04:32 Barrin wrote:

double bad choice of wording

This map is on the fringe... it could hardly be more different. It's actually barely on the fringe, I'd call it wonky tbh.

It does give interesting maps a bad name.. we're supposed to get there slowly.

Adding this map to the GSL at this point in time is what I would do if I wanted to encourage shunning of "different" maps in the future.

Like a kid tentative to learn to swim, dipping his feet in the pool for an hour or two... and then doing a dive bomb in the deep end. If he almost drowns, who can blame him for not wanting to be anywhere near a pool of water for a while?

On February 02 2013 08:27 Fatam wrote:


Having the main ramp just be 1 FF would probably solve a ton of the map's problems.. with a 2 FF ramp and a backdoor it seems like there just isn't enough defender's advantage.

The fact that the map is kind of ugly isn't helping its cause either.
I think people don't like to admit how much aesthetics can affect their opinion of a map. Then again perhaps its a bit subconscious.

Despite not liking most of the games I've seen on it, I think we should probably wait until near the end of the season to cast final judgment on the map.. people may learn to defend this layout better which could turn into better games.

On February 02 2013 08:27 Fatam wrote:


Having the main ramp just be 1 FF would probably solve a ton of the map's problems.. with a 2 FF ramp and a backdoor it seems like there just isn't enough defender's advantage.

On February 02 2013 11:58 SiskosGoatee wrote:
It has less than most maps, which I like. Maps have waaay too much defenders advantage in this game, it's basically an excuse for not scouting at this point. You see people holding all ins they didn't even see coming until the last moment because the defenders advantage is ridiculous. When was the last time a Terran actually actively scouted? They don't need it, defenders advantage will solve their problems for them.

On February 02 2013 12:07 lorestarcraft wrote:

You don't really understand anything about starcraft, do you?

Defenders advantage is AWFUL in SC2, and is one of the biggest issues with it.

You just every game to be a coinflip. You are talent with the editor, but I think you need need a better perspective of the game itself. I see it time and time again in your comments.

On February 02 2013 21:53 moskonia wrote:
Siskos dude, why do you insult lorestarcraft? Why base your arguments on calling him egocentric and a kid? Why use an Italic font on the word "brain"? These things are just condescending and annoying.

Anyways regarding the subject, I don't know if you remember old school PvP, but that matchup used to be only 4gate versus 4gate, all the time. It was very skill based, if you had better micro you would win 99% of the time, which is good, but its boring, there are not any statistical thought behind it, not anything related to an RTS, only who can click faster and more precise.

It seems most people don't agree with your thought process, since the vast majority of people agree that the new PvP is better than the old one. People like the defenders advantage, because without it the attacker would win all the time, since after all the defender invested money in an expansion, therefore he needs the advantage to survive.

The fact that players use complicated and well though out builds to break through the defenders even though he or she has the advantage is very nice to watch (for me), I find it inspiring and exciting, since there is strategy behind it, instead of just mechanics.

Ah and you are completely wrong about that you can hold Naniwa's all in, I am sure I can break you with an all in of my choice unless you are about the same level as mine. The defender's advantage is not big in SC2, in fact it is pretty small like it was said before.

On February 02 2013 22:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Because I got:

"You don't really understand anything about starcraft, do you?"

From him or her.

Sure, but there was also only one strategy that everyone did so scouting was pretty much a formality. Low defenders advantage, especially in a non mirror, doesn't lead to everyone doing the same strat per se.

The gist of low defenders advantage is that both are forced to attack, meet in the middle of the map, micro with each other and get to expand first as a reward for microing better. To me the plague of old PvP wasn't that it forced aggression, but that there was only one viable strat ever, which happened to be an aggressive one. If the only viable strat would be turtling until you got to 200/200 because the defenders advantage was ridiculously high and attacking was suicide, that would be even worse.

Yet people in most matchups these days don't. The early game in most matchups is very very stale, in PvZ it's common that Z has 4 bases and P has 3 bases before the first attack ever happens, defenders advantage doesn't mean a whole lot any more on 4-3 bases

There isn't much skill ceiling in making 2 extra bunkers and sending SCV's to repair them. I agree there are some all ins that still require micro to defend, but 4gate versus a 1 rax FE isn't one of them. Just make 2 extra bunkers and put scvs on auto repair and no amount of micro from the 4gating player is going to bust it as the scvs repair out of their own.

On February 02 2013 23:02 moskonia wrote:


If the only viable build is a macro one, the early game will be boring, but after that it won't have to be boring after that. For example in PvZ until about the 7:30 minute mark its pretty much the same every game, but after that its very different. The note in your comment about PvZ is 3base versus 4 is really not true. While there are games where both sides go macro heavy, in most games there at least one form of pressure or harassment if not a full all in.

I really don't understand how you think low defenders advantage is good, if there was no defenders advantage or very little of it there would only be one build, there is no possibility for anything but the fastest rush possible, because if you tech up you will lose to the early all in since you invested in tech while he invested in units, that is the reason why 4gate was so strong, since while there are other all ins like 3-4gate blink, 1base colossus or any other all in, it was never possible to get to the point of your tech paying for itself because of the 4gate

I agree a high defenders advantage is not good, I think maps the size of Taldarim altar with a 2 force field ramp and no back door would make for extremely boring games, but the same can be said about a map the size of Steppes of war with an open choke like Taldarim altar. The defenders advantage should be enough to allow for tech and expand builds to stand a chance versus aggressive builds if you scout and prepare well enough. Aggressive builds should never work if the opponent know they are coming and faced them before (unless there is a large skill gap)

About the thing you said in the 1rax expand versus 4gate situation, well 4gate is an old an gamble build, its a lame build that requires no strategy. Of course that if someone goes for a simple 4gate they would lose unless their opponent is new to the game or does not scout. A good all in that you will have a problem to stop is something like a 3gate proxy void ray, a 4gate prism or a blink obs all in, all of these you can't stop with just using 5 bunkers, you need to have good micro and prepare accordingly

I actually did not see any games on Icarus yet because I always miss the games on it, so I can't really comment on the defender advantage of that map, but overall maps should try to use many different elements to create enough defenders advantage so that the map will feature interesting games and not the same build every game (like Tal'darim altar 4gate wars).

On February 02 2013 12:51 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Listen kid, did the thought ever occur in your egocentric mind that if different people like to see different games than you that has nothing to do with understanding anything?

On February 02 2013 12:51 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Good, defenders advantage blows anyway. Let's give the game offenders advantage instead so people actually have an incentive to move out instead of turtling in their base, FE'ing and having no interaction whatsoever.

On February 02 2013 12:51 SiskosGoatee wrote:
It's only a coinflip insofar you don't understand the game. Like ZvZ, so many people who don't know how to scout call it a coinflip because they don't understand it and can't add 2 and 2 together in their brain. ZvZ is a prime example of a matchup with very little defenders advantage, considered a coinflip by platinum level players who have no idea what's going on. Yet people like Life and Leenock have like what, 70% winrate in that matchup or something?

Low defenders advantage actually forces you to use your brain and react upon what your opponent is doing rather than playing build order wars behind closed doors which is what all these ridiculously defensible naturals lead to. In ZvZ and Icarus you have to take the time to find out exactly what your opponent is doing or else you die. Call me crazy, but I like games more that are about scouting and reactions to your opponent rather than being safe from whatever behind a single bunker and just people throwing 'planned builds' against each other.

Low defenders advantage raises the skill ceiling of the game, it allows a player who is better to more reliably beat weaker players, simple as that. Because you can no longer rely on the map, which is the same for everyone, to defend stuff, you have to rely on your decisions and micro, which is a skill. High defenders advantage levels the playing field. I mean, take a standard 1 rax FE TvP, I could hold an all in versus Naniwa here if I wanted, why? The defenders advantage is so high here that as long as I have a vague idea what's coming, I can pull scvs, repair my bunkers, and hold it, there's nothing he can do. Now take in ZvZ, I can't hold a ling/bane all in from someone like Life even though I know it's coming, the defenders advantage is so low that micro means everything and he'll just grossly outmicro ,me.

You can't micro repairing scvs, photon overcharge or a choke point, you can however micro stalkers versus stalkers and banelings versus banelings.

On February 03 2013 08:01 iamcaustic wrote:

He's got pretty solid grounds to ask the question. Exhibit A:


Defender's advantage is a key part of RTS, or any good one at least. We've seen what happens when the attacker has the advantage. It's called PvP on Tal'Darim Altar, or 1-base rushes every game on Blistering Sands. It results in a terrible and uninteresting game where matches fail to last longer than 10 minutes on a consistent basis.

Your frustration at the excessive rush distances featured on many maps (including your own) is legitimate, as it makes it difficult for an attacker to strike before a turtle player is able to put up adequate defence and/or equalize the army size after playing greedy. It's why early attacks are so hard to pull off on maps like Whirlwind. Don't confuse this issue as a need for attacker's advantage. Onto Exhibit B:

Actually, even pro players often call ZvZ a coin flip. The reason is because there are so many opening builds that just hard counter one another, like rock paper scissors. There are certain decisions that simply have to be made before you scout your opponent. Do you 10 pool? 15 hatch? Speedling expand?

It's your inability to realize that there are decisions to be made before the scouting/reactionary process that's causing you to misunderstand much about the game and make these silly statements. Add in the huge maps and long rush distances you seem to enjoy making so much, and that compounds the issue; it takes even longer for that initial scout to find the opponent and see what's happening, especially so on 4p maps unless they get lucky with their scouting pattern and the spawns.

You're half right when talking about the defender's advantage here, though. A defender's advantage that's too high results in stale and passive games. However, one that's too low is bad as well, as I gave examples of earlier. What is needed is a balance in order for there to be a stable, yet dynamic, game. That is where our job as mapmakers comes in.

On February 03 2013 08:49 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Yeah, 10 minute matches where 90% of the time where was actually stuff happening instead of 'SO yeah ehh Tasteless, ask me a question during this downtime because both players have such defenders advantage that they elect not to attack each other and camp inside their base, so what's your favourite movie?'. I tend to take quality over quantity. Good games beat long games for me.

On February 03 2013 08:49 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I do it differently, I create long rush distances to create big maps but I also make naturals hard to defend to offset the long rush distances and create multiple chocked attack paths into naturals and thirds. This rewards multi pronged aggression while leaving punishing 1a'ing, the opponent has defenders advantage only if you can't multitask and split your army properly

On February 03 2013 08:49 SiskosGoatee wrote:
This is the only RPS of ZvZ which exists in every matchup. The point is that if you go 10pool, 15pool, 14g/14p, there is no build that auto wins against you, if you go hatch first you know you take a risk and that you will die against a 10pool drone all in. Which is something unavoidable every matchup has. From that point on though ZvZ becomes a game of purely action-reaction rather than doing build orders behind closed doors which you planned from the start of the game on.

On February 03 2013 08:49 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I don't make 4P maps for this reason, it results into scouting being largely luck based. I timed all my maps specifically so that a 9-10 worker scout can always get in and see what is going on unless people cut workers to wall super early.

On February 03 2013 08:49 SiskosGoatee wrote:
We are currently over the balance, games are currently stale and passive because there is downtime where commentators have nothing game related to talk about and go ask each other which films they saw yesterday. Of course there is an optimum but in my opinion we've well passed it currently simply because in most matchups nothing remotely interesting happens in the early game.

On February 03 2013 11:03 iamcaustic wrote:

Those weren't good games, and there certainly wasn't anything quality about them. Instead of long, boring games, you had short, awful games where someone with half their opponent's skill level could win by sheer dumb luck. That's not the solution for a competitive game.

I'm with you 100% about the sick amount of downtime larger maps have, though.

That's not a proper solution, and I label this Exhibit C. It just encourages everyone to play Protoss and do early warp gate all-ins. The opponent has defender's advantage only if the attacker can't reinforce immediately on the front line. We've already been through this phase of mapmaking, back when players like MC dominated everyone with sentry-based gateway timings on maps with highly exposed naturals.

[Exhibit D. Anything other than 10 pool you just mentioned does not punish a 15 hatchery; you end up way behind unless the hatch-first player gets too greedy with drone saturation and you manage to find a timing window, but that's relying on a mistake from the opponent. Zerg, far more than the other two races, snowballs when it comes to macro and economy.

It's not as simple as playing safe with a 15 pool or 14g/14p all the time and expecting to win most of your ZvZs. If you think you know better than the pros on this, then I daresay lorestarcraft isn't the egocentric one here.

[
Rather, you can't make 4p maps. The style of maps you make would be completely broken in a 4p setting, not that scouting is luck based. Early game scouting on 4p maps is a skill unto itself. Do you send 2 scouts to find the opponent faster, or is your build safe enough that 1 scout will suffice? That takes a lot of knowledge of the game and one's own strategy to decide properly. There's also inferring your opponent's location based on the timing and direction of the opponent's scout and redirecting your scout to the correct location. That takes game sense.

Restricting the game to only 2p maps creates its own problems. For example, you can blindly perform a proxy strategy on 2p maps, because your opponent's location will always be the same. It's better to have a range of maps where that kind of dice throwing is not always possible.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you were trying to say here.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
No, in the times of 4gate vs 4gate there was no luck involved, this was the time MC and Inca had ridculous winrates in PvP, it was pure skill, if your micro was better you won, there was no such thing as luck. Everyone did the same strat and whoever did it best won.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
And yet, it doesn't work like that empirically, if your theory was correct then Protoss would dominate on large maps and it doesn't happen that way.

On top of that, sentry all ins are terrible for multi pronged aggression. Gateway all ins just don't work well going trough multiple chokes. You go with them in one boom. You really cannot micro forcefields on multiple fronts at the same time.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Exhibit: you don't know what you're talking about. It has been empirically found that hatch first leaves you with only 20 minerals advantage versus 15pool. Please don't tell me how to ZvZ.

The advantage hatch first offers to 15 pool is extremely marginal.

Most pros know this since it has been out (except Koreans because they don't get the memo, they also extractor trick for sme reason), that's why Hatch first is very rare these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3YYKR1zVgc

Check it out. The advantage hatch first gives versus 15 pool is really insignifiant, as is the advantage 15pool gives to 11pool which was also found to only be around 30 minerals. The build order advantages in ZvZ are very low due to the nature of larvae.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
It's not a skill, it's a gamble. If you send 2 but one would've found it you just gambled, that's all.

THe only 4 player maps I made are 2 in 1 maps which are cross only. I don't like 4 player maps for a number of reasons I've given before. But mostly the fact of scouting and that mains need to double as expos.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Sounds good, in that case a proxy is a strategy that doesn't rely on RNG any more. You see people proxy in the middle of a 4 player map just as often, in which case it's just if the RNG rolls in your favour. I do believe you can demonstrate that proxying on a 4 player map has the same expectancy value of success, it's just more random and outlier. If you find them first with your proxy and they scout you very late it's extremely powerful, in reverse very weak, on average just as powerful as on a 2 player map. It doesn't make proxies less powerful, it makes them more random.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
We both agree there is a certain optimum amount of defenders advantage, too little and the game becomes too short and hectic, too much and the game becomes too stale. Where the optimum lies is subjective. I believe the metagame with the exception of ZvZ and PvP is currently over that optimum and there is too much defenders advantage because there is too much downtime. If I designed an RTS, every MU would be very ZvZ like and it' the matchup I enjoy playing and watching the most because there's always something to do. In TvT or PvZ or TvZ or TvP you often just sit in your base doing your build and you really feel like 'There is nothing else I could be doing right now'. In ZvZ there isn't really any idle time, there is always stuff to do.

On February 03 2013 13:28 iamcaustic wrote:

No, it was incredibly random. Many of those wins back then came down to the defending 4 gate player getting a good forcefield or not, and if they didn't, their army was automatically inferior due to the cost of getting the sentries, while the attacker would have stronger units. It wasn't even so much a case of landing the forcefield(s) correctly, but whether you did it before the opponent managed to get high ground vision and start warping up the cliff. In other words, did you happen to be looking at the ramp at the exact moment you needed to?

It was far more lucky and game-ending than the current issue of vortex in late-game PvZ. MC and InCa had high win rates because they made sure to be on the attack as much as possible. There's no skill in forcing yourself up a ramp in that situation, just a matter of whether you'll get that moment to warp into the high ground. It's also actually a very clean example of how bad the game would be without defender's advantage.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
And yet, it doesn't work like that empirically, if your theory was correct then Protoss would dominate on large maps and it doesn't happen that way.

On top of that, sentry all ins are terrible for multi pronged aggression. Gateway all ins just don't work well going trough multiple chokes. You go with them in one boom. You really cannot micro forcefields on multiple fronts at the same time.

You can throw around the word "empirically" for the hell of it, but empirically on large maps that allow the Protoss to safely keep on equal economy to the opponent, the Protoss dominates.

Metalopolis (after the disabling of close spawn) also demonstrates this relationship well. Protoss dominated Terran, as is to be expected with Metalopolis' design of the natural, and Zerg dominated everyone due to their ability to take a third while easily denying the third of their opponent. It became known as a Zerg map for that reason, but Terran still had a shitty time of it against Protoss

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Exhibit E. Larvae is essentially a 4th resource for Zerg. Simply looking at initial mineral benefit doesn't even begin to explain the advantages a hatch-first build gains. You're opening yourself up to 3-7 additional larvae production much faster than your opponent. That snowballs quickly.

The reason you don't see hatch-first a lot these days is because so many Zergs now 10 pool blindly to deny the chance of their opponent getting way ahead. Saying "Koreans didn't get the memo" on this point is ridiculous.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
It's not a skill, it's a gamble. If you send 2 but one would've found it you just gambled, that's all.

THe only 4 player maps I made are 2 in 1 maps which are cross only. I don't like 4 player maps for a number of reasons I've given before. But mostly the fact of scouting and that mains need to double as expos.

On February 03 2013 11:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Sounds good, in that case a proxy is a strategy that doesn't rely on RNG any more. You see people proxy in the middle of a 4 player map just as often, in which case it's just if the RNG rolls in your favour. I do believe you can demonstrate that proxying on a 4 player map has the same expectancy value of success, it's just more random and outlier. If you find them first with your proxy and they scout you very late it's extremely powerful, in reverse very weak, on average just as powerful as on a 2 player map. It doesn't make proxies less powerful, it makes them more random.

On February 03 2013 14:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
So why didn't other players do the same thing as Inca and MC, clearly Inca and MC understood something better in those days? You can't attribute InCa's ridiculous PvP winrate at that time to luck any more. MC and inca just had the best micro around those days, and in PvP of old, Micro was everything. THere was nothing random about it, they microed better.

On February 03 2013 14:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Oh yes, that Protoss heaven of 15 wins and 14 losses in the GSL. 14-14 vs Terran and 3-2 versus Zerg.

On February 03 2013 14:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
You clearly didn't watch the video did you, it illustrates how pool first at 7:00 versus hatch first leaves you with the same drone count but 30 minerals less mined and it also explains how pool first actually gives you more larvae in the early stages of the game than hatch first.

The reason only Koreans still hatch first and almost no foreigner does is exactly this, they didn't get the memo, this happens quite often. Koreans also kept using the extractor trick even though it was proven to be useless because they didn't read the English investigation which showed it leaves you about 6 minerals behind on 9 overlord and gives you a later overlord.

On February 03 2013 14:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
A calculated gamble is still a gamble. If I have an even d6 and say 'If it lands on 1 you give me a thousand euro, if it lands on any other side, I give you 2000 euro.', the calculated gable is of course to accept this little wager, it's the smart thing to do. that doesn't mean that it's still a gamble and it could just land on 1 outside of your control.

On February 03 2013 14:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Saying that it does make it weaker displays a lack of insight in mathematics, allow me to illustrate, our schematic map: