|
Hots Beta
By TImetwister22
v0.2
Playable: 162x124
Concept
+ Show Spoiler +This is my second attempt at this concept. My first attempt was with Agma Crossing, which played out alright but not nearly as well as I thought it would. Overall, the concept is to encourage outer map army movement, while still giving the option to do an early attack through the center of the map. Additionally, I decided to mess around with forward positioning, of which the player will need to do in order to hold three bases. To be able to properly defend, the player will have to properly maintain map control and awareness, while spreading out when necessary.
Concerns
+ Show Spoiler +I am mostly concerned about being able to take a third as protoss. Where my intention is to not be able to take an easy fast third, I do not want it to be nearly impossible to take a third all together. I already have several change ideas to make this third easier if need be, but decided to see how this current third plays as I look for a balance between feasible and difficult.
Tileset
+ Show Spoiler +
Phaeton tileset from Hots.
Aesthetic Shots
+ Show Spoiler +
Change Log
+ Show Spoiler + v0.1+ Show Spoiler +Changes from 0.1 to 0.2:-Third has been brought closser to the natural. -Backdoor into third now features collapsible rocks. -The high ground chokes/bridges have been tightened and slightly rearranged. -Tower position slightly different. -Slightly smaller mains. -Minor adjustments to ramps and pathing at the fifths.
As always, feedback is more than welcome 
|
Hmm 5 bases is on the small side when the expansions are so spread. It will limit options for Zerg. I guess the map itself isn't that big but that Center takes alot of space.
Have you considered the option to close the center down futher? Like having rock towers that closes off the center entrances on your opponents side.
Map looks decent through. I think it will play out alright.
|
I do have to say, despite our differences in map philosophy I really like the centre of this map. The only problem with it is that it's basically only a travel point and there are no bases there to make it more important to actually hold position on it. Especially with the low expo count it might be interesting to wrestle a half base onto that centre high ground.
|
On February 09 2013 20:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I do have to say, despite our differences in map philosophy I really like the centre of this map. The only problem with it is that it's basically only a travel point and there are no bases there to make it more important to actually hold position on it. Especially with the low expo count it might be interesting to wrestle a half base onto that centre high ground.
Not sure if you are talking about the very centre or the high-grounds surrounding it, but there are plenty of reasons to park your army on the high-grounds already, once you take your third. I do agree about the possibility of adding a half base to the middle high-grounds, though not neccesary.
I also like that possible change, adding the rocks to the low-ground path to the third, protoss could break it to make the third easier to defend but will need to break them again to take fourth.
Overall, I like. Nice work!
|
Huge maps with bases far away from each other is something I support - it was one of the main things I wanted to do on Mammoth, at least in regards to the later bases.
Saying spread out bases are flat out bad for zerg is a bit iffy, because a) that can be changed quite a bit by very open areas, and b) while it can be bad for zerg, it can be bad for all races in various ways. In fact, if you're talking about 4ths/5ths/6ths, I would say far away bases hurt zerg the least.
Spread out bases can make for different games because you don't lose 2 bases in rapid succession, which can happen quite a lot on most maps when you have 2 bases within 20-25 squares of each other. And it forces people to split their armies more, which is usually thought of as a good thing.
@ the map I think I like it, it's not doing anything crazy but when you think about it there aren't tons of "standard" maps like this. So I guess maybe it isn't so standard :-P I love the phaeton tileset, even though it doesn't look too dramatic in the overview. it looks good in-game
|
On February 09 2013 23:07 Fatam wrote:
Huge maps with bases far away from each other is something I support - it was one of the main things I wanted to do on Mammoth, at least in regards to the later bases.
Saying spread out bases are flat out bad for zerg is a bit iffy, because a) that can be changed quite a bit by very open areas, and b) while it can be bad for zerg, it can be bad for all races in various ways. In fact, if you're talking about 4ths/5ths/6ths, I would say far away bases hurt zerg the least.
Spread out bases can make for different games because you don't lose 2 bases in rapid succession, which can happen quite a lot on most maps when you have 2 bases within 20-25 squares of each other. And it forces people to split their armies more, which is usually thought of as a good thing.
@ the map I think I like it, it's not doing anything crazy but when you think about it there aren't tons of "standard" maps like this. So I guess maybe it isn't so standard :-P I love the phaeton tileset, even though it doesn't look too dramatic in the overview. it looks good in-game
It is not spread out bases as much as it is few bases really. Ling/Bling/Muta into ultras for example want 5 bases to work, and securing all 5 bases is going to be a little tough. This will probably mean Zerg will stick to the more stale Brood Lord armies, which tends to work better with a more limited economy. I do realise it is a HOTS map.
Of course protoss and terran is going to be affected by this aswell. I could see alot of games going up to 4 bases and then be decided by whoever denies the other player their fifth.
|
I like the idea of moving the third a little closer. You basically have to take the high ground to defend the third, which is cool, but that forces you to come further out of position for defending your natural, as well as that other little path to the third. As I say that, though, your natural is super easy to wall off, so maybe it doesn't matter.
I also want to point out that there's no large, continuous path to your opponent; you have to go through some sort of choke to get to your enemy's base. Maybe this will lead to some interesting positioning, I don't know.
Because it only has 10 bases and fifths are so hard to take, expect it to play out similar to Ohana in that the fifth will be denied repeatedly. Do not expect the games on this map to be anything like the maxed out 200/200 battles we're used to. I'd like to see another 2 bases incorporated somewhere, just to give the possibility of a macro game, since there's no way this map will produce one. We'll have to see whether this leads to some cool, scrappy games with bases constantly denied and basetrades and those sorts of things, or whether it'll just be 3 base all-ins.
|
How much ground can siege tanks at the high ground between the natural and the third cover? Its hard to tell from the picture.
|
On February 10 2013 05:05 Mullet_Ben wrote:
I like the idea of moving the third a little closer. You basically have to take the high ground to defend the third, which is cool, but that forces you to come further out of position for defending your natural, as well as that other little path to the third. As I say that, though, your natural is super easy to wall off, so maybe it doesn't matter.
I also want to point out that there's no large, continuous path to your opponent; you have to go through some sort of choke to get to your enemy's base. Maybe this will lead to some interesting positioning, I don't know.
Because it only has 10 bases and fifths are so hard to take, expect it to play out similar to Ohana in that the fifth will be denied repeatedly. Do not expect the games on this map to be anything like the maxed out 200/200 battles we're used to. I'd like to see another 2 bases incorporated somewhere, just to give the possibility of a macro game, since there's no way this map will produce one. We'll have to see whether this leads to some cool, scrappy games with bases constantly denied and basetrades and those sorts of things, or whether it'll just be 3 base all-ins.
This. The problem with this style of map (and I agree with the Ohana comparison but that result is for different reasons here of course) is that there's no way to actually secure position in SC2 in a relevant way that allows strategic deployment of expansions. The deployment of expansions is based on revolving tactical ploys, basically threats exploiting map route intersections and mobility. The 5th base on this map just asks for base trades if the players can't maneuvre each other into a reason to defend irrelevant map locations that are only important in blocking access to other places based on enemy movement. In other words, there's no center. And I know that's the point of the concept, but at least in WoL this doesn't make for strategic play. Maybe it can in HotS though, so go for it.
|
However is there no way to secure position in WoL? There is plenty, but when there is people complain about vast imbalances. Take infsetor/broodlord as a composition, it secures position. You generally don't want to go where it is at all. The infsetors fungal whatever comes up to kill the broods and the broods outrange it. But hey, then people complain about imbalance rather than going around it. And I never considered too strong area control a good idea anyway because it encourages turtling, which is exactly what tanks and brood lords do.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
The 5th base on this map just asks for base trades
I actually disagree, well atleast mainly.
The bases are spread out far enough that losing a single base means you still can get back and defend, where as on Ohana for example as all your bases are on top of each other you lose everything before you get home.
|
Why is anyone discussing whether a map is viable in WOL anymore? WOL is over (basically). Not to mention this map is published for HOTS lol
|
No idea, people always judge HotS maps based on WoL metagame. I loved how someone from ESV was judging Newkirk City, a HotS map and the entire theory was completely WoL based at a point where the beta was rapidly changing and there was no HotS metagame yet.
|
Tbh, i don't think that wol and hots are THAT different. Most maps will transfer over pretty well.
|
Pretty much any decent WoL map will play on HotS I feel. The reverse isn't true at all.
|
It's more unknown than untrue. I don't see deathball centered play going away though.
|
There is no 'deathball centred play'. It's also funny how that word cahnged in meaning. It used to refer to an army that was almost impossible to beat in PvZ before the infestor was buffed. After that people started to refer to any Protoss army over 60 supply to 'deathball'. Then to any large army and finally it started to mean keeping your entire army in one position. Which is like such a myth that it happens more in WoL than in BW these days.
Honestly. I have the feeling how people look back on BW is how people look back on 70's music. They compare the greatest hits from a decade of music to the music that was in the charts the last 2 months like they compare the greatest BW games of an era of 10 years to whatever WoL games were played last week. If you pick a random BW game over that time the chance is you're going to get a game that was largely decided in one engagement since most BW games actually were. Just not the fantastic games we all remember.
|
This would be a cool map with highground advantage :p
I do like it. It could possibly use another expo, like two half expos in the middle or something. Kinda boring as a whole, but solid. And its got a cool concept.
|
On February 11 2013 04:22 SiskosGoatee wrote:
There is no 'deathball centred play'. It's also funny how that word cahnged in meaning. It used to refer to an army that was almost impossible to beat in PvZ before the infestor was buffed. After that people started to refer to any Protoss army over 60 supply to 'deathball'. Then to any large army and finally it started to mean keeping your entire army in one position. Which is like such a myth that it happens more in WoL than in BW these days.
Honestly. I have the feeling how people look back on BW is how people look back on 70's music. They compare the greatest hits from a decade of music to the music that was in the charts the last 2 months like they compare the greatest BW games of an era of 10 years to whatever WoL games were played last week. If you pick a random BW game over that time the chance is you're going to get a game that was largely decided in one engagement since most BW games actually were. Just not the fantastic games we all remember.
Actually, people have been using that word since beta to mean a lot of different things.
I use it as shorthand for 1 control group + fluid clump path AI ---> move your single army around is more effective 95% of the time than intricate positioning. HotS is probably not going to change that underlying dynamic from how it works in WoL, because the units that were added don't cause any fundamental changes in space control versus unit mobility or major strategic adjustments, as far as I can tell.
The entire evolution of SC2 play has been predicated on the primacy of the deathball.
|
Yeah, and it's really not true that 'deathballing' in that sense occurs that much more in SC2. What does occur in SC2 though is that armies take up less surface area and a maxed army is smaller and less expensive because workers cost more supply and units in general cost more supply. But what people have is about as spread out.
Not to say that I'm defending SC2. As I articulated before. I think the 200 pop limit isn't enough for SC2. It should be 250 or 300 for the simple reason that in SC2 workers and units just cost too much supply for a 200 pop cap.
|
My personal view is that the improved pathing of SC2 is the main difference, leading to gameplay where most of the time it's bad expected utility to spread your army around in a passive way. The most important dynamic causing this is the inability to trade well against a larger group of units because the DPS / area is so fluid, unlike in BW where it took a lot of attention to properly orchestrate troop movement on a moment to moment tactical level for an attack.
These days pros are good enough that deathball 1a is certainly not a winning strategy, but it is the foundation on which the game operates and it can quickly devolve into that game if someone slips up. It's not that different than BW except for space control because the deathball skew is such a powerful ez-mode exploit.
On topic: With regard to this map, it is asking for super high level play to even make use of how the layout works. It's very unforgiving and I would expect the map to underperform, as it were, compared to the potential it offers based on timetwister's concept. On top of that I'm not happy about the 5th base especially, and adding a base would help that and also improve the "skill floor" of using the map the way it was designed to be used, producing more interesting games (if you prefer shrewd positioning gambits to roving deathballs, which I say emblematically).
|
On February 12 2013 03:03 EatThePath wrote:
My personal view is that the improved pathing of SC2 is the main difference, leading to gameplay where most of the time it's bad expected utility to spread your army around in a passive way. Well, improved pathing leads to better clumping meaning that a larger army fits through a narrow choke better meaning that a large army is more useful. Which is quite easy to combat in mapmaking, make more chokes. But hey, then people start to pre-emptively complain about a map being hard for Z while a quick look at the winrates on crossfire tells you this is bullshit.
The most important dynamic causing this is the inability to trade well against a larger group of units because the DPS / area is so fluid, unlike in BW where it took a lot of attention to properly orchestrate troop movement on a moment to moment tactical level for an attack. Well, this has to do with amount of units firing at the same time. Basically the majority of a 200/200 army in SC2 can fire at the same time, but like I said, you have to realize how small a 200/200 army in SC2 actually is due to how much supply units cost. This is like a 120 pop army in BW in terms of unit count and cost which could also fire all at the same time a lot better.
And like I said, it's easy to adjust maps to this. So SC2 armies fit through chokes better, so make more and smaller chokes and you're done. But hey, then the platinum level protoss biased prodigy balance theorycrafters of this forum start to complain and cite a bunch of popular myths about map balance even though there is ample precedent in maths which like invalidates each and every one of those.
|
You two really enjoy derailing threads...
|
Granted, but it's a good discussion to help mapmaking in general, besides, it bumps your thread.
|
What they're really trying to say is that the chokes in the middle of your map are pretty sweet :D
|
That's what I'm trying tyo say anyway. Anyone who ever had a glimpse of any of my map will realize I like chokepoints.
|
The best maps (imo, of course) almost always feature tiny chokes + wide open areas, with some inbetween. That variety really helps make decision-making matter a lot more. If all the areas in the map are between 8 and 16 squares wide (looking at you, lots of SC2 maps) then it barely matters where engagements happen, which means there's less of a skill ceiling.
This map has a pretty good variety
|
Updated the map to version 0.2. Check the change log in the original post to see all the change details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FnaUx2u.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QBeUpgG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AUKYMMW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/46ytP9B.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1ciWr8s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UPqjijr.jpg)
