|
Hello fellow dwellers of the TL map forum, today I'd like to talk about the validation of open naturals. Are they no longer a possibility like they were in early WoL? Some people (including Blizzard) tried to make them work on the HotS beta, but sadly it was forsaken.
First let us think exactly what is an open natural, we can look at known examples like these two:
Metalopolis: (the extreme version of an open natural)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gVOLb8S.jpg)
Metalopolis was one of the most popular maps back in the day, it was pretty imbalanced on close spawns, but on cross positions it was actually an awesome map because the rush distance covered up (sorta) for the very open natural. I think a natural so open as this can only used for a standard map if the rush distance is very big, or else it would be a micro map.
Arid Plateau: (double entrance)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mgg01UP.jpg)
This kind of natural has a very nice chance to be easily executed in a way for it to make a balanced standard map, it can also have the backdoor covered with a rock tower, so it can be blocked, although personally I prefer if it does not have one. The map was used at a time where people already disliked open naturals, therefore it was never popular, but I think this map would have been great for the current game.
Now, are they really not valid? Or is there a way to make a balanced map using open naturals. Even if there is an easy way to make them balanced, most people will see maps with open naturals as weird and bad and will refuse to play them, but maybe some small online cups will see a good map with an open natural and will put it in the pool, and from there it can gain popularity.
Anyways, before we start with publishing and even making good maps with open naturals, I would like to open a discussion to what is required to be in a map with an open natural. An open natural will likely favor Zerg, although vs hellions it might favor the Terran, these things lead me to believe that an easy 3rd would work good with an open natural since it favors Zerg vs Terran and Protoss vs Zerg.
In my opinion having open naturals be a valid choice of a map feature will improve map diversity a lot and overall make the game better, helping to make bigger maps possible, simply allowing for more unique maps. Even a map with two small entrances will play differently than a map with one entrance and will force player to maybe think about new strategies involving the nat's entrance.
I would love to hear your opinions about if you even can, and how do you make open naturals valid.
TL ; DR
Open naturals used to be a valid map feature, what can we do to make it again be as such? Both on the maps themselves and in the scene.
|
An idea for the natural would be to have an open natural AND a harder & further third so that the progression of Nat->Third would be slower. I've been thinking of something like this but I don't know if it'd be a good idea.
|
Such a map as you described would be a micro map, and most people don't like them, although I would love to see a map like that from you.
|
i thought you could wall with the nexus though on metal?
|
On September 10 2013 22:51 Semmo wrote:
An idea for the natural would be to have an open natural AND a harder & further third so that the progression of Nat->Third would be slower. I've been thinking of something like this but I don't know if it'd be a good idea.
Like most of the BW maps? Zerg in general just gets a third base earlier (just how the race works) but how it was start of sc2 with most maps it was pretty much impossible to defend a third or take it in a reasonble time frame and very short push distances. The bases were blocked and the maps were short a really bad combination.
|
|
|
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs.
On September 10 2013 22:51 Semmo wrote:
An idea for the natural would be to have an open natural AND a harder & further third so that the progression of Nat->Third would be slower. I've been thinking of something like this but I don't know if it'd be a good idea.
This sounds good until zerg, sigh. If P and T can secure the natural, then the 3rd has to be defensible for zerg if they go relatively fast 3rd (somewhat like usual), but this is hard to do and also make it farther than normal. Or, imagine the scenario where Z pressures and then takes a 3rd. The P or T can just mass up for a 2base all in and what is Z supposed to do with a low econ and probably no good tech option that will put a timer on the attack window.
|
On September 11 2013 02:38 Barrin wrote:
Note that we straight up laugh at 90%+ of the maps that were used/popular in Metalopolis' time (and that is generous imo); therefore it's feat of survival is not particularly impressive. Perhaps it survived because it was one of the few "macro" maps. But with Metalopolis' hourglass design it often turned into stagnant 5-6 base vs 5-6 base split map scenarios (generally regarded as boring) as the metagame on it reached its conclusion. This result is counter-intuitive to the very open naturals of Metalopolis, so given this it is fair to say that Metalopolis actually proved the viability of open naturals. Who are 'we'? I still think Metal, Xel'Naga and Antiga are more enjoyable to play on than every single map in the current pool except Polar Night.
That said, open naturals are completely viable. It's silly to suppose they once were, but with mothership core added they suddenly are less viable
On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs.
Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them.
They also make 4gates and sentry/immortals easier to defend and pretty much any timing reliant on forcefields a lot. A small natural choke makes it super hard to micro against forcefield and it's very easy to constrict your movement with forcefields in closed off naturals.
|
Okay, so I took all of the great advises by Barrin and implanted them on a map, tell me what you think:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hTz5vMz.jpg)
It has pretty long rush distance (178 from top of the ramp to the other top of the ramp), the nat is really tucked in into the side of the main, thus allowing ranged units to defend the mineral line without endangering themselves and it's easy to see enemy units coming (the towers cover the middle and their side, although you can break the rocks to get a path without tower vision. The other points are not used that much, but that is because I don't want any base to be "easy", beyond the 3rd you have to work hard on getting extra bases, if it would make that most games are 1 or 2 base all ins, so be it.
I think the map turned out pretty well, took inspiration from a few old maps just for the feels (mostly crossfire and metalopolis). I am thinking maybe making the 8 and 2 bases a bit easier to take by pushing them towards the 3rd a bit, but I am not sure. I think about it since I think Zerg will have a hard time taking the other 4th bases since they are more aggressive.
|
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery?
|
On September 11 2013 03:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs. Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them.
You need bunkers, and if there is a wide surface to cover you can't possibly build enough bunkers to defend the attack on all sides, meaning they will at least be killing some scvs without even having to breach the maginot line if there is one in place.
|
On September 30 2013 11:17 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery?
That, and you can't check the mineral and gas saturation with an overlord because it's just exposed to enemy fire.
On September 30 2013 14:19 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 03:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs. Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them. You need bunkers, and if there is a wide surface to cover you can't possibly build enough bunkers to defend the attack on all sides, meaning they will at least be killing some scvs without even having to breach the maginot line if there is one in place. Good luck trying to repair those bunkers in a choke with forcefields. Apart from that, these attacks are seldom defended with bunkers, people tend to move out into the open nowadays and swarm with SCV's which is superior.
Also,I don't get your point since the colossus outranges the bunkers anyway. It doesn't really matter from what angle you engage if you got 9 range vs 7 to work with.
|
I think with the recent trends with Mothership cores allowing quick expands to be more viable, open naturals are as viable as ever. Before it was quite disadvantageous for protoss but now it seems ok for them, although they'll suffer the most.
|
On September 30 2013 11:17 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery?
You can wall with about 3 3x3 buildings I think, although that is only between the ramp and the main base. I am aware that it is a lot, but the map is supposed to play aggressively, which is the purpose of open naturals. If open naturals would still allow the same expansion timing like on current maps then they change nothing.
On September 30 2013 21:55 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 11:17 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It seems annoying to wall to the cc because the ramp is facing outward. Are the geysers walls so the only entrance to the mineral line is between the cc and a refinery? That, and you can't check the mineral and gas saturation with an overlord because it's just exposed to enemy fire. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 14:19 EatThePath wrote:On September 11 2013 03:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:On September 11 2013 03:29 EatThePath wrote:
There are a lot of exploitable things about open naturals that we haven't even seen much of because they were phased out. More than just the difficulty of FFE vs ling bane or whatever early bust type stuff you saw a lot of, both pro and ladder. For example, colossus timings against terran are so much stronger against a natural without a choke. It basically lets you do a super strong attack that isn't all in either because it's easy to do enough damage that you can transition even if you don't win there. I'm sure it's worth trying but it's not as simple as "it'll be fine given xyz". (Notwithstanding Barrin's good summary.)
More than open naturals I'd rather see multi-entrance designs. Open naturals only make colossus timing attacks easier to defend. You want to be in the open defending them. You need bunkers, and if there is a wide surface to cover you can't possibly build enough bunkers to defend the attack on all sides, meaning they will at least be killing some scvs without even having to breach the maginot line if there is one in place. Good luck trying to repair those bunkers in a choke with forcefields. Apart from that, these attacks are seldom defended with bunkers, people tend to move out into the open nowadays and swarm with SCV's which is superior. Also,I don't get your point since the colossus outranges the bunkers anyway. It doesn't really matter from what angle you engage if you got 9 range vs 7 to work with.
I am aware that you can't check the mineral saturation, but it is a small price to pay for the other features of the map. You just can't have units on the high ground protect the mineral line and at the same time let an overlord have vision of it.
About colossi and bunkers, the angle does matter since while the colossus will always be able to hit the bunker, if it can hit the SCV's behind the bunker it's a whole different story.
Of course I don't really see how open naturals make it any harder to hold since the best way to stop 1base colossi is to pull workers with stimmed MM, the bunkers are only useful to delay the push for enough time for stim to finish, or for vikings to come out, which you only need when you went CC 1st or went some kind of heavily committed harass, both are not valid requirement for forcing maps to have closed up naturals.
|
My point isn't how many buildings it takes, though I also think it takes too many, my point is about how much of the main ramp you block by doing this. You want to allow people to block part of the ramp if they want to, but not force them in order to use fewer buildings.
For example, what you have is more like this (though even more extreme)
+ Show Spoiler +
Whereas I think this is better
+ Show Spoiler +
Also in both of my above examples the gasses are easy to scout.
EDIT: And would still be even if you have the cliff covering the minerals (though you still can't get mineral saturation). END
Perhaps the entrance is too small small, allowing a full wall-off with 3 3x3 buildings and the cc, but we are trying to introduce the concept to people that otherwise whole-heartedly reject the concept of an open natural.
For me the goal of an introduction to open naturals is to allow the same expansion timing while forcing more units early, keeping people comfortable with their build orders while still making the early game more aggressive.
|
Ah interesting point. I shrank the distance between the ramp and the main building at the natural so you can wall much easier.
I like the current design since it means there are advantages to not walling, unlike the 2nd pic which means it's almost always good to wall off. Because the main is overlooking the mineral line on my map, I don't think a wall is necessary, but a choice.
|
What are some advantages to not walling? Even if you can get away with it because you can shoot down on the mineral line, why wouldn't you?
|
Well as you said in the 1st pic some of the ramp is blocked so getting up into the main is harder, this is the disadvantage to walling in the 1st pic. On the 2nd pic there is almost no disadvantage besides it being vulnerable to ranged attacks, but that is the purpose of a wall anyways, to block attacks.
|
I stilll always soft wall in PvZ, never hard wall for a couple of reasons (except on Bel'shir Vestige)
- It ensures photon overcharge is always in range of the wall
- the canon that guards your wall also guards your mineral line
- ling runbies have to travel around the nexus, buying you more time
- requires less buildngs, no need to make the forge part of it so it can't be sniped easily.
|
Yeah, I feel you on soft walling vs hard walling, but I thought we were talking about not walling at all vs soft walling. I don't see anybody not always at least soft walling when taking a fast expand.
|
Yeah, I see no reason to not at least soft wall vs Z. I guess the only advantage is not exposing any production.
|
I'm all for it. Anything to make Protoss and Terran suffer ^^.
In all seriousness though, the only race this really impacts is Terran. I think Protoss will be totally fine securing their natural with the help of a MC. But, in my burning hatred of all Terran players, anything to make Terran not be able to easily wall off their natural is a good thing. Would be a nice way to even out a difficult match-up and reward Zerg aggression that is normally...pointless if Terran just sets up an easy walloff.
|
If more people make new open nat maps I don't mind organizing a tournament with open naturals. I can also put in a few old maps like XNC and metalopolis if not enough maps are made, but I would love to see what interesting new ideas for making open naturals we can come up with.
I dunno how many people will actually show up to play a tournament with such weird maps, but I am sure we can get at least enough to run the tournament and if we can get a major figure to tweet about it we can get a good amount of viewers as well.
|
I have a WIP map with an open natural, heavily inspired by the map that NegativeZero just posted in the WIP thread.
I would definitely be down to play in a tournament on these maps.
|
On October 02 2013 06:45 moskonia wrote:
If more people make new open nat maps I don't mind organizing a tournament with open naturals. I can also put in a few old maps like XNC and metalopolis if not enough maps are made, but I would love to see what interesting new ideas for making open naturals we can come up with.
I dunno how many people will actually show up to play a tournament with such weird maps, but I am sure we can get at least enough to run the tournament and if we can get a major figure to tweet about it we can get a good amount of viewers as well.
If any big tournament would have a weird maps I don't believe pros would skip that tournament. Maybe someone would whine since "learning" weird map is harder then playing on a standardize map.
|
I doubt weird maps will get into a tournament since it can backfire for the tournament if the map is bad, almost no one takes these risks, only gom.
What I was talking about is a community tournament, which could get some publicity because of its niche.
|
Not walling is simply not an option in PvZ. You die to speedlings or you need to keep a bunch of army at your Nexus at all times.
Lings are much faster than in BW and with injects you can make a lot of them much faster. Hence why this is a problem in SC2 and not as much in BW.
|
On October 04 2013 04:44 DinoMight wrote:
Not walling is simply not an option in PvZ. You die to speedlings or you need to keep a bunch of army at your Nexus at all times.
Lings are much faster than in BW and with injects you can make a lot of them much faster. Hence why this is a problem in SC2 and not as much in BW.
I think my map solves it very elegantly, since the minerals are only open from one side, it mean if you put a unit between 2 minerals it can only be attacked by 1 ling at a time, unlike 1 on either side like on normal maps. That fact makes it so you can leave 1 unit at the mineral line and it will guard the mineral line from runbys, this is the same as on hard wall-ins where you leave 1 unit at the wall.
|
On October 04 2013 02:50 moskonia wrote:
I doubt weird maps will get into a tournament since it can backfire for the tournament if the map is bad, almost no one takes these risks, only gom.
What I was talking about is a community tournament, which could get some publicity because of its niche. And even when GOM has relatively good and unusual maps like Icarus then Artosis is still complaining because he hates everythingt hat deviates from his standard epic macro game.
Icarus was pretty cool, you saw a lot of fresh strategies on this map. Not a single Z game I ever saw there was infestor/bl at the end of WoL. Any map where roaches are the standard meta vs T is certainly interesting.
|
Make third farther from natural and give it small choke/ramp, sames size as the main ramp. Problem solved.
It is harder to take initially but easier to hold once you get up and running. Will hopefully force more midgame play.
|
I like the idea of having open naturals, however there is a problem which occurs with this. Since it would be a heavy micro map, people in the lower leagues who focus mainly on micro and not macro will begin advancing in the ladder and have little macro skill. This will make the leagues alot easier again like they were in early WoL. Alot of peope will also have a false sense of skill as they will not think "oh man I'm gold now, so good" when really they should only be in silver or bronze due to poor macro but decent micro.
|
Whats wrong with having maps that put a greater emphasis on micro? The game does not care about how you win, but simply the win. I know a few cases of players that got to GM simply by doing some kind of all-in or cheese, and there is nothing wrong with it. By the way I don't see how the leagues will get easier, if you would have a large variety of maps then players who can adapt and think about builds specific to certain maps will get higher ranking, while players who do 1 build and simply macro will get a lower ranking.
You could argue that the best way for practice is doing only 1 build and that this will hurt the low leaguers who want to improve, but I would argue that if the maps were really different from each other at the highest level, then macro would not be the most valuable skill to learn.
|
On October 05 2013 17:50 moskonia wrote:
Whats wrong with having maps that put a greater emphasis on micro? The game does not care about how you win, but simply the win. I know a few cases of players that got to GM simply by doing some kind of all-in or cheese, and there is nothing wrong with it. By the way I don't see how the leagues will get easier, if you would have a large variety of maps then players who can adapt and think about builds specific to certain maps will get higher ranking, while players who do 1 build and simply macro will get a lower ranking.
You could argue that the best way for practice is doing only 1 build and that this will hurt the low leaguers who want to improve, but I would argue that if the maps were really different from each other at the highest level, then macro would not be the most valuable skill to learn.
It will make the leagues easier because the people that have a inflated win rate because of a map with a open natural (the ones that can micro) will not be able to macro at the same level as the rest of the people in the league so when it comes to a normal map with a closed natural they wouldn't be able to do some all-in that is micro intensive aswell and they will lose games more easily.
|
For some the ladder will be easier, but for others it will be harder, depends on your style and how well you can adapt, but overall I think it would make for a better game and a longer lasting game, because there the metagame would need to adjust based on maps.
|
On October 05 2013 21:51 moskonia wrote:
For some the ladder will be easier, but for others it will be harder, depends on your style and how well you can adapt, but overall I think it would make for a better game and a longer lasting game, because there the metagame would need to adjust based on maps.
The meta does change depending on the map, large maps its standard to expand before any tech whereas on smaller maps its standard to open up with some kind of offensive production building first like barracks or pool. Also depending on the map you may go air over ground if the ground rush distance is long but air rush is short, its just not many people in the lower leagues know how to analyse a map to know what is best to do.
|
Clearly there is room for more variety in how maps encourage you to play. I'm not sure I understand your issue with this. What do you mean by inflated ladder score? Such a thing is impossible, your ladder score is what it is. Even if somebody had a GM telling them what to do while they laddered and they were in a higher league, I still wouldn't say that their ladder score is inflated. They are relying on a tool that they won't always have access to and certainly wouldn't be able to use in tournaments, but who really cares for players who aren't competing?
|
from my pov ( protoss ) if you make open naturals i cant forge expand . and in mind with gate expand zerg can abuse me with going hatch before pool or 2 hatch before pool and be ahead .
|
There's absolutely no way a zerg can two hatch before pool when you go gateway first. Wouldn't the msc alone do so much damage? You could also go forge first and put a cannon in each mineral line to defend against light numbers of zerglings. The entire point of gateway expand is to enable you to be more aggressive.
|
I would rather see a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third.
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third.
|
On October 06 2013 07:04 xsnac wrote:
from my pov ( protoss ) if you make open naturals i cant forge expand . and in mind with gate expand zerg can abuse me with going hatch before pool or 2 hatch before pool and be ahead .
FFE does not have to be possible in order for a map to be good, you simply have to learn to adapt. Anyways FFE is possible, but you have to put a cannon in the mineral line as well as being ready to block the open side of the mineral line with a gateway at all times,therefore gate expand is the better choice, although FFE can be used to surprise the opponent.
On October 06 2013 16:01 larse wrote:
I would rather say a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third.
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third.
If the 3rd is hard you will see 2 base all ins all day long, since 2 base all ins are much more viable than 1 base all ins. It would be interesting to see what would happen, but I assume that it will probably only be someone tries to take 3rd and gets denied, although it depends on the map design and with clever features it can turn out nice..
|
On October 06 2013 16:44 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 16:01 larse wrote:
I would rather say a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third.
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third. If the 3rd is hard you will see 2 base all ins all day long, since 2 base all ins are much more viable than 1 base all ins. It would be interesting to see what would happen, but I assume that it will probably only be someone tries to take 3rd and gets denied, although it depends on the map design and with clever features it can turn out nice..
Not that your wrong, mosk, but more to the point, the zerg requirement of a viable 3rd base in the face of ubiquitous FE builds from terran and protoss constrains how 3rds have to be. The desire not to pigeonhole protoss into 2base allins every game against zerg also constrains the 3rd design. Together this leaves not very many options.
It's possible that having open naturals -- that work -- could shift the equilibrium point for the 3rd base and allow more variety.
|
On October 07 2013 10:03 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 16:44 moskonia wrote:On October 06 2013 16:01 larse wrote:
I would rather say a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third.
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third. If the 3rd is hard you will see 2 base all ins all day long, since 2 base all ins are much more viable than 1 base all ins. It would be interesting to see what would happen, but I assume that it will probably only be someone tries to take 3rd and gets denied, although it depends on the map design and with clever features it can turn out nice.. Not that your wrong, mosk, but more to the point, the zerg requirement of a viable 3rd base in the face of ubiquitous FE builds from terran and protoss constrains how 3rds have to be. The desire not to pigeonhole protoss into 2base allins every game against zerg also constrains the 3rd design. Together this leaves not very many options. It's possible that having open naturals -- that work -- could shift the equilibrium point for the 3rd base and allow more variety.
Very good point, the only way I see it could be viable is extremely long rush distance or having collapsible/destructible rocks; but then it wouldn't really be a open natural as there would be something to block it until you can destroy it. However it would create another path of attack when it is open as you would have the normal way in and then the rocks. This has already been done kind of in one of the new maps, I believe its called Frost LE or might be another one of them. I cant think of the name right now.
Kind of got off point there xD, for the hard to get third, I feel that zerg wouldn't have to much of a problem getting it as long as the distance isnt to great, like going outside your natural and your third is right there but then the balance of terran and protoss getting a third which is impossible to kill off come into play as they can just wall if off and have their army right near it at all time, this would create a very passive game from them until they get up a 200/200 deathball and just stomp the zerg army. So the hard to get third isnt really a viable idea, it would be okay for non ladder games in which you can just mess around with friends but for the ladder maps will need to be more balanced than that in order to keep all races happy
|
On October 07 2013 10:03 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 16:44 moskonia wrote:On October 06 2013 16:01 larse wrote:
I would rather say a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third.
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third. If the 3rd is hard you will see 2 base all ins all day long, since 2 base all ins are much more viable than 1 base all ins. It would be interesting to see what would happen, but I assume that it will probably only be someone tries to take 3rd and gets denied, although it depends on the map design and with clever features it can turn out nice.. Not that your wrong, mosk, but more to the point, the zerg requirement of a viable 3rd base in the face of ubiquitous FE builds from terran and protoss constrains how 3rds have to be. The desire not to pigeonhole protoss into 2base allins every game against zerg also constrains the 3rd design. Together this leaves not very many options. It's possible that having open naturals -- that work -- could shift the equilibrium point for the 3rd base and allow more variety.
You can sort of get around this by having 2 different 3rds: one that is very open and farther away from your opponent and one that is fairly choked and a fair distance from the natural, but slightly toward the opponent. I think SiskosGoatee's forward third on Cruel Sire is a pretty good implementation of this.
|
On October 08 2013 03:45 RFDaemoniac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2013 10:03 EatThePath wrote:On October 06 2013 16:44 moskonia wrote:On October 06 2013 16:01 larse wrote:
I would rather say a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third.
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third. If the 3rd is hard you will see 2 base all ins all day long, since 2 base all ins are much more viable than 1 base all ins. It would be interesting to see what would happen, but I assume that it will probably only be someone tries to take 3rd and gets denied, although it depends on the map design and with clever features it can turn out nice.. Not that your wrong, mosk, but more to the point, the zerg requirement of a viable 3rd base in the face of ubiquitous FE builds from terran and protoss constrains how 3rds have to be. The desire not to pigeonhole protoss into 2base allins every game against zerg also constrains the 3rd design. Together this leaves not very many options. It's possible that having open naturals -- that work -- could shift the equilibrium point for the 3rd base and allow more variety. You can sort of get around this by having 2 different 3rds: one that is very open and farther away from your opponent and one that is fairly choked and a fair distance from the natural, but slightly toward the opponent. I think SiskosGoatee's forward third on Cruel Sire is a pretty good implementation of this.
Yeah, that is a good example of trying to work around the usual problems.
|
On October 07 2013 10:03 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 16:44 moskonia wrote:On October 06 2013 16:01 larse wrote:
I would rather say a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third.
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third. If the 3rd is hard you will see 2 base all ins all day long, since 2 base all ins are much more viable than 1 base all ins. It would be interesting to see what would happen, but I assume that it will probably only be someone tries to take 3rd and gets denied, although it depends on the map design and with clever features it can turn out nice.. Not that your wrong, mosk, but more to the point, the zerg requirement of a viable 3rd base in the face of ubiquitous FE builds from terran and protoss constrains how 3rds have to be. The desire not to pigeonhole protoss into 2base allins every game against zerg also constrains the 3rd design. Together this leaves not very many options. It's possible that having open naturals -- that work -- could shift the equilibrium point for the 3rd base and allow more variety. You're reversing the problem. We want map variety in order to break out of the standard metagame and force player to find alternative strategies. What you're saying is 'You can't have this type of variety, because if you try to execute the current metagame on it it wouldn't be balanced.'
Indeed, we want people to do something else. 2base upgraded zerglings into ultras for instance takes a much later third and as it stands is also better on open and harder to secure thirds. Surely a strat like that could be adapted to work on a different map.
|
The problem is not Zerg, the Problem is Protoss. If Protoss can't get a 3rd base then it will go 2base all in all the time. A 3rd base should be viable, even only somewhat, or else the metagame on the map will be of a singular style.
|
Zerg needs +1 base as the conventional wisdom goes, which is the first parameter for how 3rds should be once you grant everyone an automatic 2nd base. If you just want to make the 3rd impossible for protoss so that zerg inevitably can take theirs and protoss can't, I don't see what that achieves for "variety of strategies".
|
On October 10 2013 02:43 EatThePath wrote:
Zerg needs +1 base as the conventional wisdom goes, which is the first parameter for how 3rds should be once you grant everyone an automatic 2nd base. If you just want to make the 3rd impossible for protoss so that zerg inevitably can take theirs and protoss can't, I don't see what that achieves for "variety of strategies".
This whole thread is based on not giving everyone an automatic 2nd base...
|
Baneling all ins become a bit of an issue if you don't have a choked natural. The various forms of Baneling cheese weren't even known back when Metalopolis was in the map rotation.
|
I am very disappointed not even one open nat map got to the finals, was sure many maps would include it, but no.
|
New rush map - We also would like to try a rush map in a slightly different fashion than before. Our goal here is to create a map where the main to main distance is standard, nat to nat is only very slightly shorter, but due to it being really open, aggression is preferred. The map as a whole feels fairly standard but the action just happens much faster.
So they do listen!
|
On December 06 2013 08:11 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +New rush map - We also would like to try a rush map in a slightly different fashion than before. Our goal here is to create a map where the main to main distance is standard, nat to nat is only very slightly shorter, but due to it being really open, aggression is preferred. The map as a whole feels fairly standard but the action just happens much faster. So they do listen!
What is this? Oh I see. Yeah, well let's wait and see the map first.
|
Despite the former balance concerns (cross position, anyway), I really miss the open naturals like from Metalopolis. ><
I am hoping this new rush map is similar in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uSvrwD3.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/beg5bPO.png)
