|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oQggf.jpg)
The 4 o'clock gold base can be siege from the main whilst only the vespene can be sieged on the 10 o'clock.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aZzpe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N9Ehb.jpg)
This lets a terran who has just cleared out the main with tanks to then take out the 4 o'clock gold easily, without the travel time or issue of pushing through a controlled xelnaga.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v55l1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KbYip.jpg)
Similarly, the 5 o'clock gold's mineral line can be sieged from the nearby main (1 patch and the geyser) whilst the 11 o'clock gold can only have a single geyser hit.
Sure, these are not map breaking imbalances but given most of my 4v4s go onto 3-4 bases a player with full 200 supply armies, its quite likely to matter for some games.
These issues are also easily fixed.
TLDR;
Effectively the bottom right golds can be sieged from the nearest mains but the top-left ones barely at all. This effectively makes one set of golds weaker than the other. With the connections between the two sides being unequal this means that one side will have (significantly) more vulnerable late-game expansions.
There seems to be little reason for this (i.e. the connectors being also asymmetrical making the two sides different by design).
|
I don't think that they really put very much thought into the 4v4-maps. There is no reason why the map would be asymmetrical.
|
|
|
How is that link relevant? 
|
I've always wondered how Blizzard manages to miss these things. It's always something to do with seige tanks and/or bunker placements anyway, I don't think it's that hard to find these things out.
|
blizzard helps terran stay op
it probably will be fixed next season.... that part wasnt sarcasm sadly
|
It will be fixed I'm sure. Keep in mind most BW maps had these issues also and were fixed slowly but surely till they were deemed "balanced". This is part of the game and will get better with time. I'm glad to see faster seasons and the addition of new maps frequently now. This will keep the game from becoming stale. Perfection is achieved through trial and error it just doesn't randomly happen.
|
On July 26 2011 14:55 Odyssey wrote:
It will be fixed I'm sure. Keep in mind most BW maps had these issues also and were fixed slowly but surely till they were deemed "balanced". This is part of the game and will get better with time. I'm glad to see faster seasons and the addition of new maps frequently now. This will keep the game from becoming stale. Perfection is achieved through trial and error it just doesn't randomly happen.
Well why does Blizzard make these maps with clear flaws when they can do much better and just use mirroring.
|
What game format is this map for? If it's not for 1v1, then I doubt it will garner much attention from TL.
|
Yes, I'm surprised they don't use a mirroring function and then go about adding the asymmetrical touches.
Ofcourse, maybe they do and just don't worry about these things... ^^
|
In any real game it won't make a difference. Those expansions can only be sieged if 2 players lost their main base already as the other side won't ever take that base unless they have a huge advantage already (so practically game over anyways).
Nice find, should be fixed just for completeness sake, but it still doesn't matter.
|
On July 26 2011 14:41 Baeras wrote:
blizzard helps terran stay op
it probably will be fixed next season.... that part wasnt sarcasm sadly
read the post or don't comment and whine for that matter. the issue is related to the symmetric imbalance of the map.
|
oh its a 4v4 map. lol
sucks for 4v4 players
|
Well, there are still a lot of refugee plays in 4s Morfildur
And I agree, its not the hugest deal but when a base trade happens in a GSL game it does come down to the third, fourth and fifth bases and whether a player can rebuild.
When you can lose your gold to an army that just sacked your main so effortlessly, with no option to return the favour, it will lose you base trades that you could have held, rebuilt and gotten on an even footing in.
|
i can't really thing of a reason for blizzard to do this, seems unlikely that something like this would just slip by blizzard
|
almost all blizzard maps have some sort of imbalance. its a shame they just dont use mlg/gsl maps.
or at least put more effort into creating them
|
On July 26 2011 12:28 XiGua wrote:
I don't think that they really put very much thought into the 4v4-maps. There is no reason why the map would be asymmetrical.
Fixed for laughs because blizzards map makers never cease to amaze me on the things they can mess up...I'd hate to say it but can anyone in the community say blizzard makes great maps with a straight face?
I do think that they really put a lot of thought into the 4v4-maps. There is no reason why the map would be asymmetrical.
|
On July 26 2011 17:45 Nerski wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 12:28 XiGua wrote:
I don't think that they really put very much thought into the 4v4-maps. There is no reason why the map would be asymmetrical. Fixed for laughs because blizzards map makers never cease to amaze me on the things they can mess up...I'd hate to say it but can anyone in the community say blizzard makes great maps with a straight face? I do think that they really put a lot of thought into the 4v4-maps. There is no reason why the map would be asymmetrical.
Most Blizzard maps aren't copy/paste from one half to the other. Most of them have little differences like this. I don't think Blizzard cares about this tiny little "imbalance". 4v4 is a just-for-fun game style, at least in their eyes, and therefore we should be making motherships, not discussing balance.
The answer is always make more motherships.
|
A lot of 3v3 and 4v4 maps have stupid design choices, but Blizzard probably doesn't give a damn because 3v3 and 4v4 aren't really competitive game modes.
|
Yeah, it looks like an interesting map. There is a lot of room in the middle so whilst it sort of is a straight fight, it actually is easy enough to dance around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
