EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hI84lYX.jpg)
Hello I'm ATTx
size : 128 x 144
(2) Heavy Rain
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
ATTx
Korea (South)178 Posts
Hello I'm ATTx size : 128 x 144 | ||
|
Jazzman88
Canada2228 Posts
In all seriousness, I would need to see both Blink and Oracle plays tested on this map, as well as how Zerg deals with parade pushes to the fourth. I just don't see how to hold that from simply looking at the map. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10354 Posts
On December 10 2013 08:16 Jazzman88 wrote: Hello, I'm a Blink all-in, and I would like to wreck your face on this map. In all seriousness, I would need to see both Blink and Oracle plays tested on this map, as well as how Zerg deals with parade pushes to the fourth. I just don't see how to hold that from simply looking at the map. if you take the third, you defend all sides of your main from blink. the map feels a bit too chokey everywhere which really limits zerg. with all those ridges, tanks also seem a bit too good. you need to make those areas wider, and in doing so, making those ridges a bit smaller. but... as deemed by The_Templar as the "third maestro", your third is fine here. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On December 11 2013 08:09 FlaShFTW wrote: if you take the third, you defend all sides of your main from blink. the map feels a bit too chokey everywhere which really limits zerg. with all those ridges, tanks also seem a bit too good. you need to make those areas wider, and in doing so, making those ridges a bit smaller. but... as deemed by The_Templar as the "third maestro", your third is fine here. lolwut you're worried about tanks, of all things, being OP? | ||
|
iMrising
United States1099 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On December 11 2013 08:09 FlaShFTW wrote: if you take the third, you defend all sides of your main from blink. the map feels a bit too chokey everywhere which really limits zerg. with all those ridges, tanks also seem a bit too good. you need to make those areas wider, and in doing so, making those ridges a bit smaller. but... as deemed by The_Templar as the "third maestro", your third is fine here. If you take 3 bases vs. a blink all-in, you will not only lose that game horribly, but will deserve it. Simply taking bases is not the same as having an army to defend against certain strategies. There's this thing in the game called "timing". I'm not really a fan of the thirds in the same way I'm not a fan of third bases on most maps: they're designed around the idea of simply having more units than your opponent. Very open concept and, in the case of the base adjacent to the main, very close to your main/nat. If you think player skill should be determined by sitting your whole army together in a ball at your front door until you hit 200/200, this is the best way to enforce that mentality. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On December 11 2013 08:26 iamcaustic wrote: If you take 3 bases vs. a blink all-in, you will not only lose that game horribly, but will deserve it. Simply taking bases is not the same as having an army to defend against certain strategies. There's this thing in the game called "timing". I'm not really a fan of the thirds in the same way I'm not a fan of third bases on most maps: they're designed around the idea of simply having more units than your opponent. Very open concept and, in the case of the base adjacent to the main, very close to your main/nat. If you think player skill should be determined by sitting your whole army together in a ball at your front door until you hit 200/200, this is the best way to enforce that mentality. Yeah, the attacker has great angles here against both thirds. You'll need a stronger army than your opponent in order to hold a third. (It means you're discouraged from fragmenting your army at all.) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On December 11 2013 08:39 Gfire wrote: Yeah, the attacker has great angles here against both thirds. You'll need a stronger army than your opponent in order to hold a third. (It means you're discouraged from fragmenting your army at all.) The lowground 3rd isn't so very bad, with the split path and assuming rocks are still up. But this map is quite like that overall. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
Did I mention you can block off one of the paths? That's why the rock tower is there  In addition the path on the far right is guarded by another base, which is probably going to be your actual third, and a destructible rock. So the third should be fine. disclaimer: I learned third bases from FlashFTW... so my opinions are often the same as his  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On December 11 2013 10:27 The_Templar wrote: yeah the highground third can be assaulted from three different positions. It also takes the enemy ten times as long to get to those positions as it takes you. Did I mention you can block off one of the paths? That's why the rock tower is there In addition the path on the far right is guarded by another base, which is probably going to be your actual third, and a destructible rock. So the third should be fine. disclaimer: I learned third bases from FlashFTW... so my opinions are often the same as his Well I think we're talking about somewhat different things. I see it like two different elements: 1. How many entrances there are to a base, and the distances between the entrances for the attacker and defender. This determines the difficulty of using your defending forces optimally. We probably want "%100 optimal" to be possible with perfect play, unlike something like Blistering Sands, and you seem to be saying this map is successful in that regard and I agree. That's where the skill ceiling is. Regarding where the skill floor is, though, and how good players need to be to reach that %100 is a much more complicated and probably subjective thing, but I don't see a real problem with it here. At least I don't know we're ready for that discussion yet and we might need to keep seeing more games across all maps. (Basic theory would be that if the distances are shorter for the defender the skill ceiling will be at %100. The amount that it is shorter, though, and the number of entrances change the skill floor. Too high, and it could be too passive and easy to defend and leave too few aggressive options. Too low and it becomes too hard to defend, and doesn't give much space for something like your opponent having faster units than you. I think your post seems to describe this, so I don't think there's any real disagreement.) 2. Regardless of the above, there is the actual positional advantage for a fight at any of these entrances. How much defender's advantage there is here determines the size of a force you need in that position to defend. Putting aside how easy or difficult it is to get those units in position, there's still a minimum number of units you need to defend (with some sort of adjustment based on how well each player can control.) If this required army size is too big or too small things could become problematic. If it's too big you could actually end up being forced to turtle to defend, and gameplay actually becomes more turtly as a result of having a low defender's advantage, which is a bit counter-intuitive but I hypothesize very possible. Even if it were easy to get in position like on a map with three bases behind a single choke, there still could be problems where it's too hard to defend things. Not likely that you would outright die to anything, but just that you'd be forced to build a large army and keep it all at home. Having said all that I don't think this map is too bad. Admittedly better as I take another look at it. I think you do have at least an even battlefield for every entrance needed to guard the thirds. When you only have one third you might still be extending pretty far out towards or beyond the other one in order to make use of these (and you still have the shorter move distances when you do this so it could be good. Requires a bit more activity from you but gives you slightly better chokes.) So it's like your fourth is almost free once you have your third if you do this. Players with different strengths/weaknesses, play styles and chosen compositions and strategies So this map has somewhat more forward positions required for you to get the best defensive positions and I'm totally fine with that, although I still think squeezing around your main building at your thirds is a bit awkward. Only a bit awkward though and not really problematic if you are prepared enough to engage at a more forward location. I'm starting to get fairly interested in the map now. Quite a switch from earlier. (I mean nothing about it really stood out to me at first so I didn't become intrigued until really thinking about it a bit.) | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On December 11 2013 10:27 The_Templar wrote: yeah the highground third can be assaulted from three different positions. It also takes the enemy ten times as long to get to those positions as it takes you. Did I mention you can block off one of the paths? That's why the rock tower is there In addition the path on the far right is guarded by another base, which is probably going to be your actual third, and a destructible rock. So the third should be fine. disclaimer: I learned third bases from FlashFTW... so my opinions are often the same as his Are we talking about the same FlashFTW that said to just take the third base to defend all sides of your main from a blink all-in? I'm just wanting to be clear on this for my personal records. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On December 12 2013 06:00 iamcaustic wrote: Are we talking about the same FlashFTW that said to just take the third base to defend all sides of your main from a blink all-in? I'm just wanting to be clear on this for my personal records. ...Yes, lol. But the thirds are fine. | ||
| ||
