These times are based on TLMC standard: the time it takes for a worker to reach one town hall location to another, give or take a second due to human rounding.
Horizontal Spawns Main to Main = 57 seconds Natural to Natural = 42 seconds
Vertical Spawns Main to Main = 58 seconds Natural to Natural = 43 seconds
Cross Spawns Main to Main = 65 seconds Natural to Natural = 50 seconds
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
v1.0
General
Initial release
Map Concept
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.
Strategy guide? Yes, normally this is where I'd talk about the map concept, but I feel this one is far enough out there that some initial direction on how to play the map would be more useful. Do note that this is a work-in-progress; I'll continue to flesh it out, but for now please enjoy by expanding the spoiler.
Please note that these strategic tips are made with the map design's intent. Players are ever creative and may find alternative/better solutions for both timing and macro based strategies. There is also not a lot of emphasis on mirror match ups, as both players have the same tools and options available to them.
Terran - Drop play still a powerful option - Tank timings can be a thing
Protoss - Might want to reconsider blink - Mothership core critical for macro
Zerg - Mutalisks are a good skill toi have - Trade a third for a nat -> profit
Taking a third
In what might be the most obvious statement ever, acquiring a maximum economy on this map is going to take more work than simply shifting your army ball into a slightly more forward position.
Which base to take
Vertical Positions
By its very design, this positional spawn is meant to encourage more aggressive strategies over passive macro-oriented play.
Terran
The island expansion is a rather convenient option for Terran
Can also consider the horizontal main/nat provided investment is made in static defence; easier to take as a 4th and 5th, though.
Protoss
For normal purposes, the horizontal main/nat
Utilizing warp prism strategies, you can play much like a Terran and take the island
Zerg
The horizontal main/nat is the way to go
Taking the island is technically possible, but would require investment in overlord drops or nydus early on; better as a recovery option should a nydus or doom drop strategy fail to end the game, or taken normally later in the game
Horizontal/Cross Positions
These spawns offer more breathing room for macro play than vertical spawns, with a (slightly) more natural process for taking and holding 3+ bases.
Terran
Take the 3/9 o'clock bases ezpz
Natural expansion flow
Protoss
Take the 3/9 o'clock bases ezpz
Natural expansion flow
Zerg
One option is to take the 3/9 o'clock bases like the other races, though you're more susceptible to some powerful 2-base timings
Taking vertical main/nat gives you more breathing room for counter-attacks, greater opportunity to engage in mid, less chance of getting positionally cut off between nat/third
How to hold the base
Terran
3/9 o'clock
Good simcity, use the watchtower, control the ramp between nat/third.
Have a map presence; if they're making a major push against your simcity side, you want to know about it before it's hitting you.
Use positional play to zone the map.
Island
Missile turrets are your friend here
Take advantage of your third being impenetrable by ground to put on the pressure; don't let them establish a formidable air presence
Protoss
3/9 o'clock
Good simcity, use the watchtower, control the ramp between nat/third
Have a map presence; if they're making a major push against your simcity side, you want to know about it before it's hitting you
Use observers and/or oracle revelation to keep tabs on your opponent so you can out-position them; forcefields and AoE will wreck a big army trying to brute force through
Adjacent main/nat
Mothership core is key; photon overcharge and recall will give you the mobility and stopping power necessary to defending a farther location
Take a page from Zerg's book; if faced with a 2-base timing against your third, counter-attack to trade your third for their nat. Make sure to have recall to get back home and defend an economy advantage.
Against lighter harassment, static defence isn't actually awful.
Island
Better as a follow-up to a 2-base warp prism timing (e.g. storm drop, sentry ramp block, sentry/immortal, DT warp prism expand, etc.) when these don't end the game.
Zerg
3/9 o'clock
Mid-map engagements are key. You want to prevent your opponent from reaching a powerful position and exploiting the corridor-like nature of the base location.
Consider tactics like mutalisk harassment or ling backstabs to keep your opponent at home until you can amass a powerful enough army to engage in mid.
Adjacent main/nat
If faced with a 2-base timing against your third, threaten the counterattack into their natural. You hold the distance advantage; disrupt their economy faster than they disrupt yours, and get home to stage a surround if they try to last-ditch bust through your nat.
Against lighter harassment, static defence and a handful of units can deflect.
About Galaxy eSports: We're an organization focused on helping build the SC2 mapmaking and North American competitive scenes. Follow us and keep up with our progress!
One of my favourite things is a nice paintjob on rocky cliff edges. Very well done there! ;D
Definitely love the idea of this map and I don't think you could ask for a better execution. Not sure SC2 as we know it will hold up to it, but maybe that's the point. Why O why don't we get something like this instead of Alterzim to get stuck in the map pool and make people actually figure it out and give us something new?
p.s. The use of this map comes with a 6month overhead cost of protoss 2base deathball allin games.
No offense, but this looks like a map straight out of the WoL beta pool. Super faraway thirds and fourths, island bases, weird watchtower placement, ...
I think the idea of a faraway third that is also a long way away from your opponent isn't bad, but here it seems impossible for both players to go up to four bases when spawning horizontally, and I think this concept would work much better on a 1v1 map.
Aesthetics are great, I always liked the Mar Sara look a lot.
Although the layout might feel pretty straightforward I do like this map quite a bit. Having the choice of the super far away third or the very close island 3rd is awesome. I love where you put the watchtowers even if others disagree because it helps with taking that base if you're forced to take it as a third. The only thing I don't really like about it is that the middle is pretty boring. It's just a giant flat square with some "bridges" and the overall pathing might be a little dull as well. For instance, even making those "bridges" in the middle high ground with ramps on each end would make it more interesting imo.
On April 12 2014 15:25 EatThePath wrote: p.s. The use of this map comes with a 6month overhead cost of protoss 2base deathball allin games.
It's become my opinion that any truly interesting map will see an influx of 2-base all-ins to start, as people take the time to figure out how to reliably secure expansions and play out a macro game. If people can immediately look at an overview and say "oh yeah, that's how you take 3-4 expansions", then I feel like a lot of the potential strategy in StarCraft is left on the table.
It is, however, a very fine line. If you do it wrong, then what you thought was "people have to think a bit more how to take a third" becomes "it's impossible for X to take a third" and your map gets banished to the netherworld of bad map designs. One of my goals with Sol Crossing is to push that boundary and see how far we can take it. The strategy guide in the OP is to help give the community a first step in the discovery process.
On April 12 2014 18:19 Semmo wrote: I like this a lot. Even though there are couple of obvious problem I see, well done!
This is my big gamble: do those obvious problems negatively impact overall gameplay, or does it only mean the creation of a different meta game? If it's the latter, then the end result is a boon to both players and spectators of the game. If it's the former, then the map will get binned.
I can't quite remember the exact number for nat2nat, but it was acceptable for all spawns. Something like ~40-45 seconds. I'll be testing the differences again for the TLMC entry, so I'll put that information in the OP when I have the exact number.
On April 12 2014 22:09 And G wrote: No offense, but this looks like a map straight out of the WoL beta pool. Super faraway thirds and fourths, island bases, weird watchtower placement, ...
I think the idea of a faraway third that is also a long way away from your opponent isn't bad, but here it seems impossible for both players to go up to four bases when spawning horizontally, and I think this concept would work much better on a 1v1 map.
Aesthetics are great, I always liked the Mar Sara look a lot.
This map design was heavily inspired by Brood War maps, which the beta maps were also inspired by, so it's not entirely surprising there are similarities. This is, however, a 1v1 map, so I'm not sure what you mean by that (maybe a 2 spawn map?).
On April 12 2014 23:17 SidianTheBard wrote: The only thing I don't really like about it is that the middle is pretty boring. It's just a giant flat square with some "bridges" and the overall pathing might be a little dull as well. For instance, even making those "bridges" in the middle high ground with ramps on each end would make it more interesting imo.
It's intentionally boring for the sake of Zergs, who will have to deal with so much else about the map that their gameplay style will inevitably have to be completely re-thought from current styles you see on current 4 spawn maps like Frost and Alterzim. At least I have a few little high-ground pods players can have fun with.
Overall, mid is the "Zerg part" of the map. It's what Zerg wants to control, it's where they want to engage the opponent's army. I like having designs that focus on 1-2 major concepts, and this one focused on 3rd base design and the side corridors.
Well some problems I see are (Sorry I didn't mention when I said there were some): 1. When spawning vertically, when you have to defend 4~5 bases the two players are too close together because atm the center is too small. I think for the top and bottom center, you have to expand it so that they can move further away from each other.
2. Because the thirds really only have one point of attack, all ins and deathballs would be very strong here. it'd be a good idea to give the defender an advantage. Something like a pseudo-cliff using xel-naga you already have and LOS blockers would be good.
3. Terrain is awkward at the nat. I think this is what I mean by "flow" or the geometry of the map; little awkward parts of the map like this can make all ins too strong etc.
I think number 1 is the biggest problem here, but yeah.
On April 13 2014 11:56 Semmo wrote: Well some problems I see are (Sorry I didn't mention when I said there were some): 1. When spawning vertically, when you have to defend 4~5 bases the two players are too close together because atm the center is too small. I think for the top and bottom center, you have to expand it so that they can move further away from each other.
2. Because the thirds really only have one point of attack, all ins and deathballs would be very strong here. it'd be a good idea to give the defender an advantage. Something like a pseudo-cliff using xel-naga you already have and LOS blockers would be good.
3. Terrain is awkward at the nat. I think this is what I mean by "flow" or the geometry of the map; little awkward parts of the map like this can make all ins too strong etc.
I think number 1 is the biggest problem here, but yeah.
I figured these were the things you were considering, which is why I didn't bother to ask for them myself. Like I already mentioned, it's a gamble on my part. Either they force a different meta or the map will be binned. They are deliberate choices though:
1. I designed the map to play differently in different spawns. Vertical spawns in particular are meant to be more aggression-focused (as in, 2-3 base games, only sometimes reaching 4-5 bases). Kind of what you'd expect for certain Brood War maps. That said, I do believe there are ways to hit these macro-style games with these spawns, but I expect them to utilize more split group-based aggression and army movement, rather than death ball unless you're committing to a major attack (in which case, the distance between major armies in mid is moot). Either way, for the start of the map's lifespan it's pretty safe to assume most players will be doing 2-base styles in vertical spawns before they figure out how to hold them reliably.
2. This sort of stuff is already outlined in the strategy guide, as it's a fairly obvious consideration.
3. I actually designed it this way for two reasons. One was to help normalize rush distances, but the bigger one was giving the players the ability to have a highly defensible nat. The attacker is not only in a long choke, but the defender has the high ground from the main. With the aggressive nature of the map and the big question mark regarding taking thirds, I felt it'd be almost impossible for the map to have legs if players were not only having to adapt their strategies and defend their third/additional expansions on opposite sides of the map, but also have to worry about being unable to reliably hold their nat as well.
The overall idea for the longer corridor came from the Brood War map Ground Zero.
Well, you seem to be very defensive about your map and don't seem to want to change. Your map, your decisions I guess, but I feel like the map'll go to waste if it stays as is.
I don't think the map will play out as you want it to play out because SC2 is too different from Brood War. And you seem to be completely ignoring the "flow" bit which was evident from the other "Geomancy" post.
On April 13 2014 15:15 Semmo wrote: Well, you seem to be very defensive about your map and don't seem to want to change. Your map, your decisions I guess, but I feel like the map'll go to waste if it stays as is.
I don't think the map will play out as you want it to play out because SC2 is too different from Brood War. And you seem to be completely ignoring the "flow" bit which was evident from the other "Geomancy" post.
Anyways, Good luck!
It's not being defensive; I agree with your points. I just wanted to make it clear that they were deliberate decisions, and elaborate on the reasoning behind making them. I fully acknowledge (and have done so a couple of times already) that it's an experiment that may very well make the map a waste. If it works out, though, it could have huge ramifications for how map design is approached in SC2.
You're absolutely right when you say I'm ignoring the flow with the natural choke, at least for now. My priorities with the design were elsewhere (I outlined my thoughts regarding the nat choke in my previous post). I could certainly take some time to make the flow better while retaining my gameplay intent, as there's nothing really stopping me other than being busy.
Not sure what you're talking about regarding the Geomancy thread, though; that was a poorly written OP causing confusion for basically everyone who joined the thread early. By the time you joined the discussion, my conversation with NewSunshine was finally starting to reveal exactly what the topic was supposed to be about, and you can read the end result: NewSunshine will be fixing the OP to avoid two different conversations from taking place. Or you can imply I have a poor understanding of what design flow is, free country and all.
Your map looks very good, i like the idea! Maybe you could make your 12 and 6 o'clock bases more interesting? Destructable rocks on both sides so you can access it from the left and the right starting position either way. But at the same time it should be a little bit more punishable. Maybe an easy to access high ground, to make it scoutable, at least, or even to put some pressure on it. Without some kind of pressure, it probably would be too easy to defend.
On April 17 2014 05:55 Striker.superfreunde wrote: Your map looks very good, i like the idea! Maybe you could make your 12 and 6 o'clock bases more interesting? Destructable rocks on both sides so you can access it from the left and the right starting position either way. But at the same time it should be a little bit more punishable. Maybe an easy to access high ground, to make it scoutable, at least, or even to put some pressure on it. Without some kind of pressure, it probably would be too easy to defend.
Definitely options I could look into, should those bases end up stale and too difficult to punish, though I want to first let it play out as-is to make sure that's the case. Thanks for the feedback.
The third is very far away and hard to creep. Queen defense vs helion/reaper will be a nightmare. Quite a few early roaches is a must just to get three bases. And even if zerg survives to the midgame, the way I see it zerg can not hold a fourth in a std bio game. Especially after being at a disadvantage up to three bases. And to add salt in the wound, terran can float to the island.
On April 21 2014 20:33 LoveTool wrote: How would you play ZvT on this map?
The third is very far away and hard to creep. Queen defense vs helion/reaper will be a nightmare. Quite a few early roaches is a must just to get three bases. And even if zerg survives to the midgame, the way I see it zerg can not hold a fourth in a std bio game. Especially after being at a disadvantage up to three bases. And to add salt in the wound, terran can float to the island.
Third bases are covered in the OP, but you are quite correct that they'd be harder to connect with creep. This map will not play identically to the current ladder pool for Zergs. Queen defence is identical on two bases, and you're not expected to hold a maximum economy with only queens on this map. I do very much encourage expanding the spoilers in the OP to get a more broad idea on how people are expected to take additional bases.
Early roach timings are a growing early ZvT meta on the current ladder (some of the nastier ones even like to play with burrow). If it was a terrible thing for Zerg, I wouldn't have considered making a map like this. As for the island, it cannot be taken before medivacs due to the rocks. If you keep track of timings, that means a Terran will not be able to begin seriously establishing the base before the Zerg is investing in mutalisks. The isolated nature of the base works two ways -- highly defensible against a ground army, but very weak against air-based assault.
All that said, if you expect to play the 4-6 queen opener where you get 70+ drones before making a ling/bane/muta army, then your assessment is spot on. It is a terrible map for that strategy, and Zergs will find themselves having a very hard time if they try it.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
On November 04 2014 08:53 SatedSC2 wrote: Meh. TDA win-rates don't look Zerg favoured to me anyway:
Not that win-rates actually matter. My argument is that Zerg players will have to resort to a lot of two-base all-ins if they spawn vertically. TDA had a difficult to take third and so Zerg players disliked it, but it didn't have narrow pathways or hard-to-flank attack routes or a small rush distance.
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 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).
On November 04 2014 08:53 SatedSC2 wrote: Meh. TDA win-rates don't look Zerg favoured to me anyway:
Not that win-rates actually matter. My argument is that Zerg players will have to resort to a lot of two-base all-ins if they spawn vertically. TDA had a difficult to take third and so Zerg players disliked it, but it didn't have narrow pathways or hard-to-flank attack routes or a small rush distance.
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.
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).
On November 04 2014 08:53 SatedSC2 wrote: Meh. TDA win-rates don't look Zerg favoured to me anyway:
Not that win-rates actually matter. My argument is that Zerg players will have to resort to a lot of two-base all-ins if they spawn vertically. TDA had a difficult to take third and so Zerg players disliked it, but it didn't have narrow pathways or hard-to-flank attack routes or a small rush distance.
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.
They didn't supply where their data came from so how could I possibly analyse it? I did miss the statement "highest levels of play" so I was wrong about that, but I think that since TLPD doesn't show that same bias that they're quoting - especially in the Korean data - it's safe to assume that Blizzard have pulled that number out from somewhere else.
But like I've said a few times now, my argument has fuck all to do with win-rates.
Or you're forgetting the fact that those Korean tournament games involved days/weeks of practice to play against a particular opponent, while high-level ladder data more closely reflects general state of balance and is one of the key components Blizzard uses to track said balance.
And yes, you've mentioned a couple of times that your argument has nothing to do with win-rates, but only after you tried to use maps and your mistaken remembrance of their ZvX win rates to demonstrate your point and were promptly corrected. Oh, and then continue to frivolously try discrediting the data even while trying to distance yourself from that string of conversation. "They didn't supply where their data came from"? Really? You don't know where Blizzard could have possibly gotten ladder win rate data from? I don't suppose they own the servers and store the data themselves, now would they?
I was appreciating the critical feedback until you decided to go off the deep end with this kind of nonsense. Justifying your theorycraft with a terrible mis-remembering of historical SC2 isn't helpful to anyone, particularly mapmakers. I simply ask that you keep statements -- especially predictions -- grounded in reality.
All that said, I completely understand your observation that vertical spawns will revolve around more 2-base play. I also expect as such, as you might have observed in the release notes:
On November 03 2014 07:03 iamcaustic wrote: 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.
The only real question is how many games will end on 2 base vs. those that see players taking a third. It's something I'm very interested in seeing, and you've made it quite clear you expect most games to remain on 2 base. I appreciate that feedback.
Really? Even after I put effort into transitioning the conversation away from discussing map win rates (because you apparently didn't want to discuss it anymore), you jump right back into it. Okay. Here's where you brought win rates into the topic of conversation:
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.
Bold emphasis in the nested quote is mine, naturally. I include myself in the quote because my response is pretty much how you'd expect someone to respond to phrases like "stay competitive" and inferences to Zerg pros hating the map due to their inability to be competitive. I suppose it comes down to this: what does "competitive" mean to you? To any normal person, that means having at least an equal chance to win, which directly correlates to win rates.
Your semantic dodging by saying "but I didn't explicitly use the phrase 'win rate'!" is meaningless and non-constructive to a quality discussion.
The rest of your post is, quite literally, circular discussion. You've already made those points two or three times in this thread already. I'd appreciate it if you stopped posting your continued derailing of the thread, with some regurgitation of things you already said just to keep the appearance of staying on topic. That said, if you have something else to contribute other than your weird denial for generating an off-topic discussion of TDA win rates, or your dislike for vertical spawn's tempo-oriented design, you're more than welcome to share.
It's definitely reaching to call vertical spawns "tempo-oriented design" and deny it'll be hard for zerg. I'd like to believe it'll play okay, aka after 3 months of meta settling the winrates would be near 50/50, and I can envision how that might look, but based on everything that's come before it doesn't seem perfectly likely. But it seems possible, so I'll say what I usually do in these situations and hope for games on it! It's a cool map for sure.
On November 05 2014 07:25 EatThePath wrote: It's definitely reaching to call vertical spawns "tempo-oriented design" and deny it'll be hard for zerg. I'd like to believe it'll play okay, aka after 3 months of meta settling the winrates would be near 50/50, and I can envision how that might look, but based on everything that's come before it doesn't seem perfectly likely. But it seems possible, so I'll say what I usually do in these situations and hope for games on it! It's a cool map for sure.
I don't think there's been any denial about difficulties for Zerg when comparing to the current meta. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread:
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.
I think it's pretty unanimous that vertical spawns do not accommodate the current ZvX meta. The discussion is whether that's ultimately imbalanced or not, which is hard to say since there aren't really any maps that prevent fast 3 hatch styles. I think it's better to test that on a map that still allows relatively normal games 2/3 of the time.
v1 of the map showed (at least from my data) that BW-style "expand on the opposite side of the map" isn't practical for HotS Zerg. v2 might very well show that Zergs need 3 base economic saturation to compete against 2 base saturation of T/P, but historically that hasn't always been the case (though they certainly need 3 hatch production). We also haven't really seen the scenario at all in HotS.
Worst-case scenario, I'll make a v3 or simply disable vertical spawns. Best-case scenario, we get to see a different style of game while opening map making possibilities.
I could've called you out right there but decided not to as it would go off-topic to much knowing you would write 3pages worth of trash, but since you're calling me out on it I will take the bait in this thread
On November 05 2014 19:32 SatedSC2 wrote: Get over me kiddo. It's not healthy to be so obsessive.
It's hardly obsessive, you are just making a scene out of yourself.
On November 05 2014 03:26 iamcaustic wrote: Really? Even after I put effort into transitioning the conversation away from discussing map win rates (because you apparently didn't want to discuss it anymore), you jump right back into it. Okay. Here's where you brought win rates into the topic of conversation:
Erm... You said that I brought up win-rates when I did not. The quotes prove that I did not. Am I supposed to just let you make baseless assertions without responding to them?
just because you bring something up indirectly, does not mean you didn't bring it up anyway.
On November 05 2014 19:32 SatedSC2 wrote: Putting words in my mouth isn't constructive either.
You made a terrible assumption when you decided I was talking about win-rates and you were wrong about that assumption. I was talking about attitudes towards the sort of thing that vertical spawns on this map promote. If you're not willing to admit that vertical spawns on this map are only forcing Zerg to do something different - whilst Terran and Protoss do what they normally do versus Zerg - then you're being blind. That Zerg would have a bad attitude towards this is self-evident and that's what I was pointing towards with my TDA example. Not balance.
of all people you should not be the one to call someone out on strawmanning
On November 05 2014 03:26 iamcaustic wrote: The rest of your post is, quite literally, circular discussion. You've already made those points two or three times in this thread already. I'd appreciate it if you stopped posting your continued derailing of the thread, with some regurgitation of things you already said just to keep the appearance of staying on topic. That said, if you have something else to contribute other than your weird denial for generating an off-topic discussion of TDA win rates, or your dislike for vertical spawn's tempo-oriented design, you're more than welcome to share.
I wouldn't need to repeat myself if you didn't constantly try to de-rail the thread to shield your map from criticism. It's funny that you're accusing me of de-railing the thread when it's actually you doing it, by the way.
you're delusional, you're consistently assaulting any balance claims on this map in a trollish manner.
I'm going to skip over the other posts because frankly, pretending like competitive viability and win rates are mutually exclusive concepts is an exercise in massive delusion, and simply address the productive discussion:
On November 05 2014 21:11 SatedSC2 wrote: Are you going to address this or not?
Vertical spawns don't change P and T meta whatsoever vs. Z. They massively change Z meta vs. P and T. This puts Z at a disadvantage.
It's really all I care about.
The other spawns - and this is something I already said - are very good.
I very well may. I want to get some play testing on the current version of the map to determine whether your concerns are substantiated or not, and act from there. I do think it's a bit early to conclude it doesn't change P or T meta at all, however, especially T considering the prevalence of triple CC builds in TvZ, not to mention there's little data for how Zerg would adapt beyond what I gathered through v1. I don't know if that data is as relevant though, since v1 basically just had Zerg 1 and 2 base all-ins all the time, while I'm hoping the (comparatively) more viable thirds here might diversify things a bit.
Vertical spawns don't change P and T meta whatsoever vs. Z. They massively change Z meta vs. P and T. This puts Z at a disadvantage.
It's really all I care about.
The other spawns - and this is something I already said - are very good.
Putting Z at a disadvantage = winrate < 50% for Z. I have no desire to get caught in your circular arguments, or to perpetuate derailment of the thread, but I seriously don't know how you extricate competition and advantage vs. disadvantage from the concept of winrates. You can't separate them, and no amount of semantics will change that. Even accounting for what appears to be an extremely conservative view of competitive SC2, you could've simply expressed a dislike of that particular spawn from a Z point of view, with which the mapmaker completely agrees, that's pretty much the point of the map.
Instead you basically come in and tell the mapmaker how he should and should not make maps, by virtue of incessantly arguing how bad it is for Zerg. Also being a dick to Meavis is totally uncalled for. You should try making a map right now, seriously, do it. That way, when it looks like shit - because it's your first map - I can come in and shit on you for it. You wouldn't want me to do that.
You should try making a map right now, seriously, do it. That way, when it looks like shit - because it's your first map - I can come in and shit on you for it. You wouldn't want me to do that.
Anyway, now that your lack of respect for mapmaking is quite apparent, I see no good reason for any of us to listen to what you have to say, especially not caustic. Feel free to brighten the days of others.
To be fair, when you ignore the derailment the original critique was useful. It's one thing for a mapmaker to say "hm, this spawn might still be hard for Zerg" and another for there to be additional validation for that concern. It gives me reason to put a particular focus on testing it rather than letting it sit on the back burner.
On November 07 2014 04:44 iamcaustic wrote: To be fair, when you ignore the derailment the original critique was useful. It's one thing for a mapmaker to say "hm, this spawn might still be hard for Zerg" and another for there to be additional validation for that concern. It gives me reason to put a particular focus on testing it rather than letting it sit on the back burner.
Well, I think it's pretty clear that those spawns don't accommodate standard zerg play, so any testing the map gets would naturally focus on seeing what happens with zerg. For him to start arguing like that is wholly unnecessary. If you know the map is likely to be imbalanced, but still want to push it for a good reason, I don't see anything to argue about.
On November 07 2014 04:44 iamcaustic wrote: To be fair, when you ignore the derailment the original critique was useful. It's one thing for a mapmaker to say "hm, this spawn might still be hard for Zerg" and another for there to be additional validation for that concern. It gives me reason to put a particular focus on testing it rather than letting it sit on the back burner.
Well, I think it's pretty clear that those spawns don't accommodate standard zerg play, so any testing the map gets would naturally focus on seeing what happens with zerg. For him to start arguing like that is wholly unnecessary. If you know the map is likely to be imbalanced, but still want to push it for a good reason, I don't see anything to argue about.
Fair enough! Thanks for your support on the matter.
I'm gonna see if I can't also get some play testing during lunch here at work. The number of people playing SC2 in the immediate vicinity of my workstation has grown considerably.
I initially agreed with Sated, but as the argument progressed I forgot what everyone was talking about.
I personally think there are few interesting things about the map. It's also on my blacklist because all of the attack paths are really straight without much variety. I think a lot of that is due to the base setup, which is a result of it being a 4player reflectional map.
I feel that it would be an interesting 2-player map, though.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1fBMICy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y3qr1q7l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hN79M2jl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OSTYmU3l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ljSx171l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hPcj8Cbl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cNVuFOVl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8geqKXQl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I7nR9i7l.png)
