|
On May 03 2014 05:41 LoveTool wrote:
You are missing the point. 4 bases are a requirement for zerg in a macro game - regardless of when to drone. If zerg can't defend 4 bases, zerg is dead long term. Without 8 gasses, zerg can't go into late game.
Creep spread may be the most important aspect of the matchup, regardless if terran goes mech or bio. That creep must connect all four bases as a minimum requirement. To threaten terran to counter push if terran engages poorly, zerg needs some creep spread beyond that too.
With enormous rush distance to any "4th" your map makes this necessary creep spread practically impossible. This effectively kills the map for this MU, and thus for any serious playability.
Zergs need to be up one base from their opponent (for economic reasons relating to their less efficient armies). Worrying about fourth bases is something to be done when you can't do anything about your opponent taking a third. You're applying realities of current ladder maps (the guarantee of maximum economic saturation for both races) to an entirely different concept.
The 3 base Zerg vs 2 base T/P paradigm alone is completely different on this map. You can't simply copy/paste your Habitiation Station play style (for example) to this map and expect it to work. If your statements about the match ups were absolute instead of an adaptation to current ladder map designs, Zerg would have never won games prior to the creation of Daybreak.
|
Great response and great philosophy in general for making new cool maps. I really love the fact that maps can play out differently, and they should be different. But on this map?
I realize as a map maker people "stuck in the meta" are common and can be a bit tedious to deal with. Your response shows good patience with that. But I don't feel I am exactly one of them. I really like different play, esp in ZvT.
To give you an idea, one of my favourite things about a new ladder season is sitting down and figuring out a way to "play the map" for each new map. For example, when I play zerg on merry go round I love 2 base aggression with roach or roach/ling and then transition into swarmhost contain. Another example is on Waystation, short spawns, where I also play very aggressive early and then deny the open third. Basically, I really like any way I can make the map "work for me" in any matchup.
In the examples I just gave, I feel that zerg aggression is possible on both these maps since a) rush distance is rather short and/or there is a direct path of attack b) terran third base is actually vulnerable. Aggression vs 2base terran can be followed up by denying and/or delaying the third while zerg accumulate other advantages.
But on this map, I really don't see any 2-3 base zerg aggression as possible. Not in any way that I know of anyway. Especially in horizontal spawns, the way I look at the map you can just forget about that. Thus the 4-base points I made.
If that is what you are going for I feel you have to make the main/nat more vulnerable to air and probably also make those thirds a LOT more open. There is no direct attack path, both ways into the area are long+narrow and either far off the direct attack path (which forces zerg to move out of position to attack, slower + larger risk) or through the super defensible area around the ramp up outside the natural - where terran army will be parked anyway. The third mineral line is not even harassable by air. And heck, there is even a xel'naga at the third see any attack coming even without a sensor tower.
If you want lower econ action in line with the philosophy you outline I feel you have to give zerg a lot more to work with in terms of attack advantage provided by the map. Terran is arguably the strongest defensive race. In this case I feel the map gives T a distinct defensive advantage. For example, imagine defensive 2-base terran that delays taking a third while harassing. Harass vs 3-base zerg looks strong here, since the 3 bases zerg will need to attack up that ramp or deny a T third are very spread out. So T can park outside natural and control the ramp, harass and after getting an army take a late and safe third PF, then push a zerg still stuck on 3 base. Since T knows Z can't take a fourth and defend it there is no rush to drill down to take it down early, like in the current meta. It looks so easy.
How does Z play vs that?
You mention early mutas, but a) air space around nat-main is very limited, and heck parking T army close to the ramp effectively defends about half the little air space there is to begin with b) fast 2base mutas is vulnerable to committed 2-base T harass, which btw synergizes well with the defensive 2base T plan outlined above. Heavy ling/speed bane? Speed roach/ling/bane timing? That requires attacking up a ramp into a defensively positioned 2-base terran? Don't think so...
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I realize you may not agree with any of that, and that others may have their own opinion. I'm not seeking agreement or trying to get a discussion going about what you may feel are hypothetical opinions. I just feel the map is unrealistic. I would veto it on ladder; and I think I have only vetoed one map ever on the ladder (Red City).
|
On May 06 2014 04:16 LoveTool wrote:
Great response and great philosophy in general for making new cool maps. I really love the fact that maps can play out differently, and they should be different. But on this map?
I realize as a map maker people "stuck in the meta" are common and can be a bit tedious to deal with. Your response shows good patience with that. But I don't feel I am exactly one of them. I really like different play, esp in ZvT.
To give you an idea, one of my favourite things about a new ladder season is sitting down and figuring out a way to "play the map" for each new map. For example, when I play zerg on merry go round I love 2 base aggression with roach or roach/ling and then transition into swarmhost contain. Another example is on Waystation, short spawns, where I also play very aggressive early and then deny the open third. Basically, I really like any way I can make the map "work for me" in any matchup.
In the examples I just gave, I feel that zerg aggression is possible on both these maps since a) rush distance is rather short and/or there is a direct path of attack b) terran third base is actually vulnerable. Aggression vs 2base terran can be followed up by denying and/or delaying the third while zerg accumulate other advantages.
But on this map, I really don't see any 2-3 base zerg aggression as possible. Not in any way that I know of anyway. Especially in horizontal spawns, the way I look at the map you can just forget about that. Thus the 4-base points I made.
If that is what you are going for I feel you have to make the main/nat more vulnerable to air and probably also make those thirds a LOT more open. There is no direct attack path, both ways into the area are long+narrow and either far off the direct attack path (which forces zerg to move out of position to attack, slower + larger risk) or through the super defensible area around the ramp up outside the natural - where terran army will be parked anyway. The third mineral line is not even harassable by air. And heck, there is even a xel'naga at the third see any attack coming even without a sensor tower.
If you want lower econ action in line with the philosophy you outline I feel you have to give zerg a lot more to work with in terms of attack advantage provided by the map. Terran is arguably the strongest defensive race. In this case I feel the map gives T a distinct defensive advantage. For example, imagine defensive 2-base terran that delays taking a third while harassing. Harass vs 3-base zerg looks strong here, since the 3 bases zerg will need to attack up that ramp or deny a T third are very spread out. So T can park outside natural and control the ramp, harass and after getting an army take a late and safe third PF, then push a zerg still stuck on 3 base. Since T knows Z can't take a fourth and defend it there is no rush to drill down to take it down early, like in the current meta. It looks so easy.
How does Z play vs that?
You mention early mutas, but a) air space around nat-main is very limited, and heck parking T army close to the ramp effectively defends about half the little air space there is to begin with b) fast 2base mutas is vulnerable to committed 2-base T harass, which btw synergizes well with the defensive 2base T plan outlined above. Heavy ling/speed bane? Speed roach/ling/bane timing? That requires attacking up a ramp into a defensively positioned 2-base terran? Don't think so...
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I realize you may not agree with any of that, and that others may have their own opinion. I'm not seeking agreement or trying to get a discussion going about what you may feel are hypothetical opinions. I just feel the map is unrealistic. I would veto it on ladder; and I think I have only vetoed one map ever on the ladder (Red City).
Before I respond, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write out these comments; I really appreciate that you're taking an interest in the map and offering your thoughts to help make it better. I've been told I can sound defensive in my responses so when I get this kind of feedback from someone I just want to make sure it's known that it's both welcome and wanted.
Onto the discussion, the rush distances on this map are actually on par to maps like Merry-Go-Round, which I think might be one of the major disconnects we're having with discussing Sol Crossing; it's a 4 spawn map, but its size isn't as great as something like Frost. If you're having success on Merry-Go-Round with early aggression, the timings are no different here.
Since I feel the islands are particularly vulnerable to harassment, let's focus on horizontal spawns. The concept I applied here was inspired by maps like Metalopolis, which ultimately became a Zerg-favoured map when close ground spawns were disabled (and mutalisks are stronger now). Zergs were perfectly capable of putting pressure on a 3-base opponent there, and the nat-to-third distances weren't as long for the defender as it is on Sol Crossing. Also to consider is the air distances between naturals is much shorter than the ground distances from the Terran ramp to the Zerg third, especially if you pick a further base like your vertical nat (their cross) to avoid getting cut off at your own ramp and risking a base trade.
What makes Terran pushes scary is when everything is together. The concept I just described forces them to split their army to avoid having their economy gutted while they're marching across the map. Of course, as a Terran it'd be silly to just march only half your army across the middle of the map, so one of three things:
1. Drops against third while taking own third -- Defend with scouting, static d and a small squad of units. Apply your own harassment. Standard stuff.
2. Two-base push against third -- trade your third for their nat. You'll still be up 2 bases to 1. This concept isn't possible with thirds that are easily connected with creep due to raw proximity.
3. Two-base push against nat -- Same as holding a two-base push against your natural on any other map, except your third isn't as easily sniped due to distance.
While the 30% speed bonus and vision are amazing, Zerg still has the most mobile early/mid game of the three races with or without creep. Distance is your friend (as long as you deny proxy pylons  ).
I bring up mutalisks a lot because I disagree about the lack of openness for air units on the map. I think air is actually quite potent here, between the strength of air vs. the islands, the short horizontal nat-to-nat distance for air, the vast air spaces by the Xel'Naga Towers (which makes the 3/9 o'clock bases vulnerable as well) and air space on the edge of each main. The map's design is partially reliant on this air potential, so I do agree we have a problem if mutalisk harassment isn't viable. I'd love for some additional gameplay data on this, as I'm basing my assessment on my own games played. It's quite critical and I think forms the second disconnect we have with the map, along with rush distance.
I think the rest of the details are more or less a consequence of those two things.
|
I don't normally bump my map updates, but this one is pretty significant to the point of almost making it a whole new map.
Sol Crossing v2.0 Change List
General
- Base count increased from 12 to 16
Balance
- 3 and 9 o’clock bases split and moved closer to mains for better distance proportioning
- Mid map 6 and 12 o’clock bases added as an alternative third for vertical spawns
- Xel’Naga towers moved to centre map for better positional control
Terrain
- 3 and 9 o’clock positions opened up and ramps added for better terrain flow
- Mid map manmade bridges raised and extended to provide more dynamic mid map control and pathing
Version 2.0 of Sol Crossing vastly changed how the map plays compared to the original design, but in a way that still adheres to the original concept I wanted to create. Both feedback and additional play testing showed that the original design didn't consistently create the kind of games I was hoping for. What v2.0 represents is a middle ground between the kind of design I wanted and player expectations for a competitive map. To clarify, here were the concepts:
Horizontal Spawns
Strong nat-nat air harassment to spice up what would otherwise be mostly standard game play.
Vertical Spawns
More inclined for an extended 2-base mid game, focusing more on tempo-based play instead of passive macro and forcing players to expand somewhere other than the "expected" third base.
Cross Spawns
Your generally expected, standard macro game.
I really wanted each spawn combination to play differently from one another, so the map would be exciting and different for a longer duration of time. Such a thing also brings strategy more to the map side, where players are focused more on early game scouting to determine their game plan instead of going in with a pre-set plan, and in some cases forsaking early scouting altogether.
I'm particularly happy with this update, as I feel it moves the map from experimentation to competitive viability. I'd also like to thank everyone for their constructive feedback in this thread. It's always a big help when people offer alternative view points and thought processes with the goal of making something even better.
|
|
|
When Yeonsu went to college.
|
On November 04 2014 00:26 SatedSC2 wrote:
Vertical spawns look incredibly imbalanced against Zerg players.
In what way, particularly? My original thought with the vertical design is that Zergs wouldn't be able to do 3 hatch before pool and other such greedy styles, but they have a number of aggressive options with 2-base saturation and the mid-map 6/12 o'clock resources would let them push the creep forward very quickly (as opposed to the original design, which tried to force the old BW style of taking a 3rd far away from both them and the opponent).
|
|
|
On November 04 2014 02:28 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:55 iamcaustic wrote:On November 04 2014 00:26 SatedSC2 wrote:
Vertical spawns look incredibly imbalanced against Zerg players. In what way, particularly? My original thought with the vertical design is that Zergs wouldn't be able to do 3 hatch before pool and other such greedy styles, but they have a number of aggressive options with 2-base saturation and the mid-map 6/12 o'clock resources would let them push the creep forward very quickly (as opposed to the original design, which tried to force the old BW style of taking a 3rd far away from both them and the opponent). In PvZ I feel like Immortal/Sentry all-ins are going to be pretty unstoppable in vertical positions. It doesn't matter if you open two-base Lair or three-base-before-Lair, it's going to be very hard to engage a Sentry-heavy Protoss army given how narrow the sides of the map are. Forcefields are going to ruin a Zerg's day in those positions. I say this as a Protoss player who plays a very aggressive style of Protoss and who dreams of map architecture like that seen on this map. I guess a two-base Lair Zerg could hold with a mass amount of Spine Crawlers, but then they just get contained on two-bases forever and die slightly later... In TvZ I feel that similar logic applies to parade pushes (minus the Forcefields). It's going to be too easy for the Terran to set-up a very difficult to engage position heading towards the natural because of how narrow that part of the map is. This is different to horizontal positions as although the rush distance is similar, flanking options are increased as the opponent needs to make their way through the middle of the map and exposing themselves to attacking up ramps. They don't do either of these things in vertical positions. Equally, the third base being further away makes it harder to take because it's going to be easier for Hellion/Reaper squads to deny that base from going up. If this map had vertical spawns in a tournament or on ladder, I'd predict a lot of two-base Roach/Baneling busts coming out from Zerg in vertical positions. I don't really see a way for Zerg to win by playing a traditional macro game in those positions, whereas Protoss and Terran can go about their standard macro openings quite easily.
I see where you're going with that. Since PvZ isn't my forte compared to the other non-mirror match ups, I have a question about the sentry/immortal all-in: how difficult is it to stop if a Zerg has a solid idea that it's coming? My assumption was that it was fairly manageable based on PartinG's hey day, where the hard part was scouting it in time. I made the nat gas geysers easily scoutable via the island high ground for this reason (basically just seeing the nat gas timings for any aggressive build). A Zerg taking the mid-map 12/6 also means forward, mid-map creep and a production rally outside of the nat choke, which means a Protoss either striking the third (mid-map engagement as opposed to exploiting the nat) or striking the nat (potential for Zerg reinforcements to surround).
Or am I completely off-base with this line of thinking?
|
|
|
On November 04 2014 03:39 SatedSC2 wrote:
It's very difficult to stop even if you know that it is coming. For instance, I use a 1GFE Immortal/Sentry all-in that places the Robotics Facility in the natural wall-off and Zerg players have a hard time holding that off even though they can see the Robotics Facility very easily: Against FFE-based Immortal/Sentry all-ins such as PartinG's, scouting it is coming is more difficult and so that would pose even more problems. (but I am only Masters so take that how you wish).
Fair enough, seems like that's something I'll have to keep an eye on through play testing. I'm just curious about the circumstances involving these games you're citing; was the Zerg in a situation/spawn combination that heavily implied you'd be doing a more aggressive build? If you have an equal opportunity to either do a sentry/immortal or take a passive third (for example), then I think it becomes much harder for the Zerg to have a strong response. In vertical spawns, I feel a Protoss taking a passive third is much less likely, which should help cater Zerg builds more toward crushing a push than trying to guess whether to make units or saturate a third.
On November 04 2014 03:39 SatedSC2 wrote:
I think that the sides of the map are narrow enough that a Zerg trying to reinforce from the 12/6 o'clock bases will still get cut into bits by Forcefields. For a start, the ramps are quite narrow, so getting up/down them to flank is going to be difficult. Even then, the pathway itself is narrow enough for Protoss to Forcefield completely and that makes attacking the Protoss army from behind incredibly hard. Scouting the all-in coming is definitely important, but you need to be swarming the Protoss from the moment they leave their base and that's going to be difficult to do on this map in the vertical positions. I don't even think Ohana provides better architecture for Immortal/Sentry all-ins if I am being completely honest.
I think you're exaggerating a bit; those "quite narrow" ramps are the same width as both of the natural ramps on Ohana, and wider than Ohana's rocked ramp beside the third (before the rocks are destroyed). The main ramp between the nat/side third is larger than any ramp Ohana has. Furthermore, Ohana's architecture lets a Protoss push go from third->nat->main doing nothing but exploiting 1x or 2x ramps. I appreciate critique, but let's not be silly.
On November 04 2014 03:39 SatedSC2 wrote:
This doesn't even take into consideration how hard that third base is going to be to hold vs. a +1 4 Gate (FFE) or a Sangate (1GFE). The reinforcement distance is very large. Getting Queens over there to help defend is going to be difficult and even getting slow Roaches out there to defend is going to be a chore...
I agree, assuming players continue to do their current ZvP builds. Referencing my first paragraph though, my curiosity revolves around circumstance; there used to be a lot of maps with more difficult thirds and Zergs took plenty of wins against Protoss anyway, but that's because they knew fast 3 base saturation wasn't viable and did something different. The original design of the map was too much for Zergs to reasonably take a third at any point in the game, but I'm still trying to see what the limit is on this.
|
|
|
On November 04 2014 05:06 SatedSC2 wrote:
On this map the natural is very easy to take, so I feel like Zerg needs a decently timed third base in order to stay competitive in a macro game. Tal'Darim Altar would be an example of a map where the natural was easy to take but the third wasn't and I remember a lot of notable Zerg players hating that map as a result.
Tal'Darim was notoriously Zerg-favoured, though. This was even admitted by Blizzard via their insane amount of game data when they removed the map from the pool (same goes with Metalopolis). Granted, this map is no Tal'Darim either (that map was huge), so it's hard to say.
|
|
|
On November 04 2014 08:10 SatedSC2 wrote:
Didn't the ladder version have the rocks at the third..?
I guess I could be wrong, but I do remember people like IdrA frequently six-pooling on that map because they hated it.
There's a difference between being uncomfortable for a race and being bad for that race. Also citing IdrA is nearly equivalent to hearsay.
|
If this map was vertical spawn only, then it would easily be the best map ever.
|
|
|
On November 04 2014 08:10 SatedSC2 wrote:
Didn't the ladder version have the rocks at the third..?
I guess I could be wrong, but I do remember people like IdrA frequently six-pooling on that map because they hated it.
IdrA was also known to rage-quit games he was winning. Yes, the ladder version had rocks at the third, and Blizzard's stats had a Zerg win rate of 60%+ regardless alongside Metalopolis and Scrap Station (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2878771457#1).
We're talking hundreds of thousands of games under Blizzard's data pool.
EDIT: Besides, the entire design around vertical spawns on this map is centered around tempo-based play with an extended 2-base mid game. Players can all-in if they want, but that's a choice. Vertical isn't focused on 4+ base macro games, but I don't think it's impossible either, in the same way you'd sometimes see long macro games on old, aggressive maps like Lost Temple.
|
|
|
On November 04 2014 09:01 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 08:54 iamcaustic wrote:On November 04 2014 08:10 SatedSC2 wrote:
Didn't the ladder version have the rocks at the third..?
I guess I could be wrong, but I do remember people like IdrA frequently six-pooling on that map because they hated it. IdrA was also known to rage-quit games he was winning. Yes, the ladder version had rocks at the third, and Blizzard's stats had a Zerg win rate of 60%+ regardless alongside Metalopolis and Scrap Station ( http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2878771457#1). We're talking hundreds of thousands of games under Blizzard's data pool. Played by Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Diamond and Masters players on the ladder..? I don't like cherry-picking data from tournament/pro-games that much, but I think that ladder games are a reasonable data-set to exclude. In any case, my argument isn't about winning and losing. My argument is that vertical spawns force a play-style from Zerg that is exploitable by popular Protoss and Terran two-base all-ins. Those all-ins didn't exist in the past but they do now and this map plays up to them.
If you're going to criticize a larger set of data, you could at least do the courtesy of reading the source:
Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool, and along with Scrap Station (also being removed) and Tal’darim Altar, has a heavy (60%+) bias toward zerg at the highest levels of play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
