(Please note that these images are still showing version 1.0) (11:00 main) (10:30 nat) (chocke is small enough to wall-off with two 3x3 and pylon going flower to flower; here the 6:30 nat) (09:00 third) (12:00 third left side) (12:00 third right side)
I actually feel like the XNT might be unnecessary given that the map is somewhat on the chokey side ("chokey" here not being a bad thing, just how the map is).
I honestly dislike this map. I think that mapmakes should start going back to different styles and also start looking up some old bw maps. Im so tired of boring maps like this. How about you stop making maps where the third and fourth are basically identical and instead make a really easy third but a very difficult 4th. It would make the game so much better and wed stop seeing people actually win by being terrible and just doing some cheap backstab tactics that blossom on these kind of maps.
On May 21 2013 19:08 onewaystyx wrote: I honestly dislike this map. I think that mapmakes should start going back to different styles and also start looking up some old bw maps. Im so tired of boring maps like this. How about you stop making maps where the third and fourth are basically identical and instead make a really easy third but a very difficult 4th. It would make the game so much better and wed stop seeing people actually win by being terrible and just doing some cheap backstab tactics that blossom on these kind of maps.
have you played the map yet?
one hint: while the design of thirds and fourth is same/similar to have rotational balance, they will play out very differently in relation to when you take them; e.g. the right 6:00 base taken as fourth will need a different way of defending than the left which you could be take as third. It is true that you need same thirds and fourths deisgn on 4p maps, yet this map provides much more diversity than whirlwind, because of all spawns enabled and also because of the 3:00 and 9:00 bases.
maybe your comment was not very well informed, but anyway, comments like yours help map makers very little. this map actually tackles some problems very well that we have with whirlwind (positional-uber-balance > boring).
On May 21 2013 19:08 onewaystyx wrote: I honestly dislike this map. I think that mapmakes should start going back to different styles and also start looking up some old bw maps. Im so tired of boring maps like this. How about you stop making maps where the third and fourth are basically identical and instead make a really easy third but a very difficult 4th. It would make the game so much better and wed stop seeing people actually win by being terrible and just doing some cheap backstab tactics that blossom on these kind of maps.
We do look at old BW maps, but a lot of their features can't be done because of forcefield, warp-in and the lack of a real high-ground advantage. Samro's map isn't a standard one, you'll have to work for your 3rd quite a bit more than on akilon wastes for example. I want to see how it plays out. Vent your ladder frustration somewhere else please.
This is one of the only TLMC finalist maps I haven't had a chance to play yet so I'll add my meching terran opinion properly when I've gotten a chance to play it today, but from the overview I really like some of the ways you've used the rock towers and I especially like the way (much like in Planet S) how the main juts out over the natural choke. It's hard to really quantify into words just how much that helps mech openings against Toss, especially mine which is a siege expand. It's part of the reason Bel'shir vestige is really hard to mech vs toss on as there's not really any highground for you to shell them from.
Whether it works as well as it looks like it will I don't know, but I like the look of it from the overview. ^^
On May 21 2013 19:08 onewaystyx wrote: I honestly dislike this map. I think that mapmakes should start going back to different styles and also start looking up some old bw maps. Im so tired of boring maps like this. How about you stop making maps where the third and fourth are basically identical and instead make a really easy third but a very difficult 4th. It would make the game so much better and wed stop seeing people actually win by being terrible and just doing some cheap backstab tactics that blossom on these kind of maps.
Easy third and impossible 4th= antiga. I'm pretty sure most people were happy to see that map go. Also those "cheap backstabs" are what made life so successful. Doing those backstab attacks well is actually very difficult
ESVision/Ironman just streamed a few games on the TLMC#2 maps and the single game on that map was quite entertaning. TvZ from vertical spawns and ling agression ended up in a complete mech game from both sides with all bases taken at some point. very strong positioning from both players expanding horizontally taking away rocks as they grabbed more space (well, at least after they got that part ) and harass/snipes against the far away bases.
This is not what one can expect from the first publicly streamed game on a map and in general not from the vertical spawn setup, yet it showcased the possibilities and issues with the rock and ramp setups between vertical spawns.
I am looking forward to many more games and if you are up for a few games to join the TLMC channel on NA and play the new maps, they are all pretty interesting!
This is not what one can expect from the first publicly streamed game on a map and in general not from the vertical spawn setup, yet it showcased the possibilities and issues with the rock and ramp setups between vertical spawns.
Does this mean you hated the game or liked it? I can't figure it out :p
Playing this map I really enjoyed the positioning aspects on it and I think for a change it's a really, really nice map for mech. For me personally I can't think of much I'd like changed.
On May 21 2013 14:47 Samro225am wrote: Known Issues: we are currently looking into the 'issue' of too many rocks. while they are integreal to the map's concept, we might be able to make the design work with less rocks.
so what are your experiences with rocks on this map?
While I haven't played the map yet, we talked about it a little while obsing the game earlier today (yesterday now?), the long TvZ. They didn't really come into play much during the game, other than the players were diligent in removing them when it was to their benefit. That's always cool, but I think this map just has too many rocks in general. Part of the reason I say that is because top level play is too tight to allow time for the destruction of so many rocks at crucial early timings, so balance shouldn't depend on it all across the map. This is most relevant probably in the middle where the long vertical rocks increase the openness.
Now, those long vertical rocks and the long horizontal rocks at the 6/12 highgrounds seem to be meant to increase the rush distance and impede pushes in horizontal spawns. A similar set of rocks is used for vertical spawns, the little 2x6 horizontal rocks on the inner highground at 3/9.
Those rocks all seem like they are fixes, not part of the map design itself. And in addition to the rock towers and the rocks on both ramps to the 3/9 bases, it's a bit overwhelming. Personally I think the 2x6 rocks at 3/9 are completely extraneous and could be removed. The others I can understand why you need them, but I still think it'd be better to use less rocks, although I don't have a really good reason. Except for the inner rocks at 6/12, which are a chore for zerg to destroy to make the middle more zerg friendly, and they won't have a good opportunity to do that in horizontal spawns.
My suggestion would be to have rock towers over the ramps at the 6/12 highgrounds, analogous to how they function for vertical spawns. The current long horizontal rock not only looks funny, but it doesn't buy you much increased rush distance. So in my eyes it really only serves to create a narrow ramp, but I can't really envision a scenario in the early game where you would defend at that chokepoint in horizontal spawns.
The long vertical rocks in the LosB seem like they might be better as a permanent barrier. I am wondering about: what if you remove the rocks, make the current LosB line unpathable, and replace the inner doodad clump with LosB. This makes the center more open, retains the LosB feature which will be very relevant in horizontal spawns and many other situations, and simplifies the rocks situation. It is also really not that different functionally than the current situation with rocks. It would also emphasize the 6/12 highground position because it permanently takes longer to go around to the ramp on the opposing side.
Here is a picture to illustrates some possible changes to think about:
Of course these are just my thoughts from observing one game and giving the map some thought for the better part of an hour while looking at the in-game proportions and distances. And I may have missed some of the motivations behind the rock usage.
thanks for the input! With some observation you are right, other analysis are not completely correct, but I agree with what you think needs to be looked at.
vertical rocks in losb are part of the design, like the rock towers between vertical spawns they are meant to slow down pushes and force players to take other routes. think of a 2p axial symmetry with the shortest path blocked.
the long horizontal rocks (12 and 6) used to be rock towers during the design process before.
the middle could use a bit more space, but i am not so sure about your suggestion with even more permanent obstructions. i rather have more permanent obstruction gone and leave the vertical rocks in an important position. with the idea of smaller hole/doodad cluster at its end you are correct though.
your in depth discussion is very much appreciated!
Playing it yesterday although I didn't notice some of the rocks (like the ones in the LoSB, thought that was just a wall I couldn't break) I didn't mind your rock placement. If anything it benefits my very slow, high tank count style due to the fact it chokes off quite a lot of areas which in my opinion is badly needed on atleast one map in the map pool to make mech a lot more viable on it. There's lots of flanking oppurtunities for the other player, but if you've got a mech player sieged up well, they'll still be able to cover those flanks and at least do some damage before the tanks died.
I'd love to play it in a couple of more games today and play some more agressive mech styles, but I shut down my own push yesterday when I trapped myself in the wrong place :p
I didn't notice this before (not sure how), but I think the vertical spawn rush distances are pretty worrisome.
Ohana (a pretty short rush distance map) has a nat ramp to nat ramp of around 34 worker seconds.. the nat choke to nat choke for the vertical spawns here is only 26-28! (depending on where exactly you consider the choke to be). Horizontal is more reasonable at around 34-35.
On May 29 2013 06:09 Fatam wrote: I like the changes.
I didn't notice this before (not sure how), but I think the vertical spawn rush distances are pretty worrisome.
Ohana (a pretty short rush distance map) has a nat ramp to nat ramp of around 34 worker seconds.. the nat choke to nat choke for the vertical spawns here is only 26-28! (depending on where exactly you consider the choke to be). Horizontal is more reasonable at around 34-35.
Please check the possible wall-ins before throwing around false numbers! No idea how you calculated it, if you used an analyzer or if you measured from some strange position.
The wall can be build from ramp/plant to flower or flower to flower. Measuring on the central point on that line I receice 33 and measuring CC to CC I get 40. Sure, if you wall off at the outmost point of the choke you get other results. The outmost point of the nat choke indeed is the smallest being blockable by 3 forcefields.
Please note that the choke is designed to be quite narrow and longish and is overlooked by the main (tank vs roach push). All rush distances were checked over and over again. The design was adjusted in many small steps constantly looking out to get the numbers reasonable but different enough from each other, while keeping a space efficent design with thirds in a good and manageable distance.
So far the design works with all spawns enabled.
edit: now that is set: glad you like the changes
edit2: the whole design revolves around getting the possibility of aggression and macro in one map. if players spawn vertically and bring the aggression early one games can be short,but it can totally go into a macro game even with the short rush distance - because of the way the terrain is made between these spawns although this comes into play after the very first aggression. The shortest distance is made to be played micro-intensive in order to make it slow. I am sure there will be pressure builds, agression early on and even cheese but by design the game might be slower on vertical spawns (later nat and third in most cases) and more aggressive than on horizontal. That is what many actually ask for: make a map that allows aggression and macro games from all spawns and plays out differently often enough.
^vert nat2nat is it really that small? I think it's worth trying given the map as a whole, how the 3rds are in those positions, and that will only be 1/3 of the time. By eyeball it looks okay, but still cause for a little anxiety. We shall see! I would like to test.
Map is definitely better for the simplification and adjusted proportions and slightly bigger distances. Really good example of iterating on feedback. All the rock towers seem really important in the applicable spawns, which is very cool.
Now am I thinking about possible watchtower setups, haha. It's totally fine without any, though.
I think the bottom/top bits were better with the previous rocks as it still allowed small units entry, where as now even big units can take that path early.
On May 29 2013 06:58 Qikz wrote: I think the bottom/top bits were better with the previous rocks as it still allowed small units entry, where as now even big units can take that path early.
It wasn't actually blocking any ground units before, it was just a small choke (analogous to a 2x2 size or a 1ramp).
On May 29 2013 06:58 Qikz wrote: I think the bottom/top bits were better with the previous rocks as it still allowed small units entry, where as now even big units can take that path early.
thanks for the input! Do you judge from overview/theory or did you have a chance to play the updated streamlined version? we had the impression the rocks made that part fiddly to an extent it hurt. I hope this version is not too simplistic for your likes
On May 29 2013 06:40 EatThePath wrote: I like the changes too.
^vert nat2nat is it really that small? I think it's worth trying given the map as a whole, how the 3rds are in those positions, and that will only be 1/3 of the time. By eyeball it looks okay, but still cause for a little anxiety. We shall see! I would like to test.
Map is definitely better for the simplification and adjusted proportions and slightly bigger distances. Really good example of iterating on feedback. All the rock towers seem really important in the applicable spawns, which is very cool.
Now am I thinking about possible watchtower setups, haha. It's totally fine without any, though.
go ahead and test it. It should be up on NA as well. Search for TLMC.
Yeah definitely not trying to put false #s up. I remeasured from the flower adjacent to the main ramp (which is a debatable spot to measure from since the choke is narrower farther forward so it is quite conceivable that people would wall-off there) and got 32. If you add 2-3 seconds to each side (by measuring from the forward, narrower spot on the choke) it is easy to see how I got 26-28.
Either way, whether you want to use 28 or 32 as your official number, I think it's worth questioning/having a plan B ready in case it becomes a problem.. Especially considering the nat is behind the main ramp so the main ramp to main ramp is essentially the same distance as the nat choke-> nat choke.. it's a very, very short rush.
I think (were it to win TLMC and make it to ladder) it would be the shortest nat-nat / main-main ever in the ladder pool other than entombed valley horizontal spawns (which most ppl agree were bad) and a couple beta maps.
I'm actually not trying to bash the map too badly though, other than that problem I think the map is really cool, I like a lot of the ideas. Even though the rush for vert spawns is short I like the dual paths there, also.
On May 29 2013 09:56 Fatam wrote: Yeah definitely not trying to put false #s up. I remeasured from the flower adjacent to the main ramp (which is a debatable spot to measure from since the choke is narrower farther forward so it is quite conceivable that people would wall-off there) and got 32. If you add 2-3 seconds to each side (by measuring from the forward, narrower spot on the choke) it is easy to see how I got 26-28.
Either way, whether you want to use 28 or 32 as your official number, I think it's worth questioning/having a plan B ready in case it becomes a problem.. Especially considering the nat is behind the main ramp so the main ramp to main ramp is essentially the same distance as the nat choke-> nat choke.. it's a very, very short rush.
I think (were it to win TLMC and make it to ladder) it would be the shortest nat-nat / main-main ever in the ladder pool other than entombed valley horizontal spawns (which most ppl agree were bad) and a couple beta maps.
I'm actually not trying to bash the map too badly though, other than that problem I think the map is really cool, I like a lot of the ideas. Even though the rush for vert spawns is short I like the dual paths there, also.
it is nice to you have so much interest in the map and show your support here. yet we are obviously monitoring the 32sec rush distance and make changes if needed before TLOpen.
the solutions for it are +2/4/6 seconds with rocks on the near side of the ramp or/and extra height to the map. if we feel okay without these changes after having seen more games i am more than happy though.
If 32 is okay, I'm not sure what timing breaks at 4 seconds sooner. Also, the comparison to entombed is a good starting point but of limited use since the 3rd was also even closer to the opponent, and here in vertical spawns the 3rd actively pulls the players farther apart and farther away from the shortest route. The destructible rocks also add a few seconds I assume.
The most dangerous part about it, imo, is the situation that players might have to play overly safe on the chance that the spawns are vertical and the opponent is doing something very fast and cheesy which can't be stopped in vertical positions if you play greedy, before scouting. Of course, you could also have a build that delays the greedy decision until scouting, and you can always scout vertical first.
Okay, I like this map now. Glad you got rid of the rocks at the 3 and 9 positions, and generally reduced the number of rocks in the map. This is shaping up pretty well.
On May 29 2013 15:42 EatThePath wrote: If 32 is okay, I'm not sure what timing breaks at 4 seconds sooner.
Did we ever establish that 32 is ok? I mean, it might be but I don't think we can say that for sure yet. I sort of hope so, as I think the map is in a pretty good place right now and it would be unfortunate to have to mess with things.
I also think that can be a dangerous way to think (that 28 is ok because 32 is ok). Cuz then you can be like "well 28 is ok, so 24 is ok".. etc. - at some point you obviously have to draw the line.
On May 29 2013 15:42 EatThePath wrote: If 32 is okay, I'm not sure what timing breaks at 4 seconds sooner.
Did we ever establish that 32 is ok? I mean, it might be but I don't think we can say that for sure yet. I sort of hope so, as I think the map is in a pretty good place right now and it would be unfortunate to have to mess with things.
I also think that can be a dangerous way to think (that 28 is ok because 32 is ok). Cuz then you can be like "well 28 is ok, so 24 is ok".. etc. - at some point you obviously have to draw the line.
i think the distance is crucial, but you are making a strange argument here. nobody says -2 is okay and another -2 is okay.
Additionally each map feature needs to be evaluated in its context, similar to what EatThePath wrote:
On May 29 2013 15:42 EatThePath wrote: If 32 is okay, I'm not sure what timing breaks at 4 seconds sooner. Also, the comparison to entombed is a good starting point but of limited use since the 3rd was also even closer to the opponent, and here in vertical spawns the 3rd actively pulls the players farther apart and farther away from the shortest route. The destructible rocks also add a few seconds I assume.
What is described here is something I am sure we will experience in many games:
On May 29 2013 15:42 EatThePath wrote: The most dangerous part about it, imo, is the situation that players might have to play overly safe on the chance that the spawns are vertical and the opponent is doing something very fast and cheesy which can't be stopped in vertical positions if you play greedy, before scouting. Of course, you could also have a build that delays the greedy decision until scouting, and you can always scout vertical first.
It just happens when players are challenged with something that diverges from "daybreak clones". We need to play and observe games and give players and the map a chance to play out this way or another.
On May 29 2013 06:58 Qikz wrote: I think the bottom/top bits were better with the previous rocks as it still allowed small units entry, where as now even big units can take that path early.
It wasn't actually blocking any ground units before, it was just a small choke (analogous to a 2x2 size or a 1ramp).
I played it and I'm pretty sure my tanks couldn't get up the ramp :p
Either way doesn't matter now. I want to get to play this but I'm a bit busy at the moment, hopefully it'll end up on ladder and I can play it more frequently/easily! :D
On May 29 2013 06:58 Qikz wrote: I think the bottom/top bits were better with the previous rocks as it still allowed small units entry, where as now even big units can take that path early.
It wasn't actually blocking any ground units before, it was just a small choke (analogous to a 2x2 size or a 1ramp).
I played it and I'm pretty sure my tanks couldn't get up the ramp :p
Either way doesn't matter now. I want to get to play this but I'm a bit busy at the moment, hopefully it'll end up on ladder and I can play it more frequently/easily! :D
Oh I might be wrong then.
About rush distance... there's definitely a "too close" that just makes for imbalance, regardless of intervening terrain. In that kind of situation, the mere threat of an attack abusing the close distance forces the blind response, which puts that player behind regardless of whether the attack is carried out. This kind of "for free" advantage is the real culprit imo, since I assume you can hold 99% of attacks if you know which one it is and players figure it out eventually. This also means that determining imbalance is a lot harder than "does zerg always die to a marauder hellbat push" in the first 2 weeks of a map.
I have no idea if 32 is okay. It is borderline by current standards but it was average at one point. HotS competition maps so far have used the forced macro overly conservative nat2nat developed in WoL and I don't remember any maps in beta that really pushed the nat2nat on the short side. There are certain things like immortal sentry all-in that will be too strong at short distance regardless of HotS changes but we don't actually know what those are. Surely worth pushing the limits imo.
How close is Klontas nat2nat assuming you take the little bridge? I know all-ins can be troublesome on that map but I can't recall what the rush distance is on that.
news: with the extra height of 4 added to the map the distance can go up to "as much as" 35, depending on wheather one forces the scout to take the outiside (3rd base) by adding a small bend into the plateau.
edit: this change will be tested before TLOpen. All other changes of 1.1 will be kept.
just a quick information: we want to stick with the design of the map unless games prove that changes are needed.
the current setup allows three distinctively different rush distances. The closest distance can be abused in the sense that an aggressive undetected cheese will make lots of damage, but so far it seems like many things are defendable and even on close spawn games that make it through the first minutes have a good chance to actually develop macro games.
Why I think it deserves your vote: - lefix says it is the best - most possibilities from agression to macro - change the Terrain by taking Down Rocks Or Add collabsable Rock towers - no Features that Force specific tactics beside scouting - finally all spawn
- no Features that Force specific tactics beside scouting
I think this is a big one. A lot of the other maps basically force zerg to go muta which imo is kind of lame / would get boring very quickly.
Yeah, I agree. However for this map, the threat of a very close rush distance spawn actually probably does force certain build orders unless you are willing to gamble. But the map overall does not heavily favor or prevent any style.
Every map 'forces' certain build orders. There's essentially no map in the pool where you can go 3 CC before rax. All the maps 'force' that you have to go 1 rax CC or CC first into rax. If you make maps large enough or go play in the practice league or say on Arkanoid. 3 CC before rax is pretty standard meta. There's no theoretical limitation in the game itself that stops you from successfully making a third CC before a single rax. It's a function of the maps we currently use.
with RSL season 5 taken by life over bomber (and me finally having time to catch up with the last month of starcraft) i made a small collection of tournament games. From this small sample one cannot really discuss balance, but maybe see a few things that work well on that map as well as stuff one would like to do differently next time.
unsure when one can say it is time to actually judge a map, but in my opinion Strangewood Mire showed its potential to produce different games. it's symmetry is something i will keep in mind for new maps at least.
lookingback at its small history of exposure (TLMC2 and RSL season5) i am quite happy how it turned out. except: avocado! (:
hyun speedling runs over the close third, baneling into nat and shortly after another bust into the nat and after pushing twice (not realizing the possibility to go through) lucifron kinda starved.
I feel like exanding towards zerg does not help under all circumstances. zerg can just replenish again and again, use the highround with mutas going back and forth etc. a more defensive posture and a few tanks might be needed to expand towards, but gas will be running short.. i guess only bomber can do it lol
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P8VyM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rBzxWpQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mrjx5Ab.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rocCtng.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oMEPpfi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3IrS86j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VtBx7Qf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wRh7ANP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ren8uX9.jpg)
) and harass/snipes against the far away bases.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i9hLvO2.jpg)
