EPTNew Maps for Ladder Season 6 - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Slydie
1998 Posts
| ||
|
S1eth
Austria221 Posts
On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote: I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad. So it's a good map? | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12047 Posts
Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible. You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems. | ||
|
Nyast
Belgium554 Posts
On November 03 2013 20:51 Qikz wrote: Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible. You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems. That's the mindset of somebody who has a race with high mobility  If what you said was true, Protoss would never be able to take 3 bases. Ever. Like on Polar Night. Polar Night is in my view one of the worst SC2 maps ever for Protoss. According to your description it's a good map though. But all I know is that as soon as I try to get 3 bases on that map, Zerg overruns me on multiple fronts, mutas come from 360° in my main, and I'm not even speaking of Terran drops. Reasonable distances between the natural and third ( without too much open space ) is a critical feature of a decent Protoss map. If you think otherwise, don't go complaining that Protoss only ever does 2 base all-ins. | ||
|
S1eth
Austria221 Posts
On November 03 2013 20:51 Qikz wrote: Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible. You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems. It is perfectly fine to have one map in the pool that allows for easier expanding. And from all the games I've seen, it's not exactly easy to defend all four bases from attacks/drops. | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
| ||
|
Khai
Australia553 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12047 Posts
On November 03 2013 23:12 Khai wrote: I thought Akilon deserved to stay, it's still providing pretty exciting and interesting games. Whirlwind was excellent but have probably been around too long. Bel'Shir should go next, Star Station TE is going to be another nightmare for Protoss with an impossible 3rd... If it's hard for the toss to take, it's also easy to attack into so players will just, for the first time in SC2 have to actually tailor builds to that map be it expanding behind a 2 base attack or doing some form of all in, or even expanding far away from their main sneakily. | ||
|
LastLemming
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Also I like the 3v3 maps a lot, 4v4 I'm a little confused where the starting positions are on the second one... | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12047 Posts
On November 03 2013 22:48 Nyast wrote: That's the mindset of somebody who has a race with high mobility If what you said was true, Protoss would never be able to take 3 bases. Ever. Like on Polar Night. Polar Night is in my view one of the worst SC2 maps ever for Protoss. According to your description it's a good map though. But all I know is that as soon as I try to get 3 bases on that map, Zerg overruns me on multiple fronts, mutas come from 360° in my main, and I'm not even speaking of Terran drops. Reasonable distances between the natural and third ( without too much open space ) is a critical feature of a decent Protoss map. If you think otherwise, don't go complaining that Protoss only ever does 2 base all-ins. High mobility? High mobility? All I ever play is mech. In fact, I got so bored of the map rotation being so stale and so easy to get three bases (which benefits me considerably) that I stopped playing the game completely and went back to play BW again. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On November 04 2013 00:28 Qikz wrote: High mobility? High mobility? All I ever play is mech. Concerning Protoss... Ugh this is my biggest problem with it all right now. Not how the race is, but how much people complain about it. It's completely impossible to implement any sort of even slightly distant third base without everyone whining about Protoss. Here's what I think happened: Back in like 2011, Protoss was having a hard time. We were all unhappy with Blizzard maps in general, and I guess with patches as well. Naturally we were trying to balance the games with maps. The Koreans were already moving towards it, releasing Daybreak around that time for example. We were unfortunately impatient, not allowing players to keep trying to adapt and Blizzard to patch when they felt it was time. The TLMC happened and Cloud Kingdom, Ohana and Korhal Compound were released. People loved CK and Ohana but hated Korhal because the third was too hard to take. From then on there was no chance undoing our mistake. Maybe by now enough people are complaining about easy thirds they a movement back would be accepted. I hope so. Oddly enough the thirds on Ohana, Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, despite being pretty close, don't have the easiest to defend designs. All three have more open paths in for the attacker than the defender, on CK due to your own nexus being in the way since the map is squished into too small of bounds and there wasn't enough room. So even back in WoL we could have done a better job without risking the balance much, and I tried to a little as it became apparent to me but it wasn't really anything significant by the time HotS came out. On HotS Protoss is definitely more equipped with msc to hold thirds so I think that helps some too. They still seem to (at least in people's minds) require closer thirds than the other races do, but by less than in WoL, right? It's definitely about time we had some further away thirds. I think I'll make it my goal to get a BW style 12 base 4p map into the pools. FS from proleague does seem to have some tough winrates for PvZ but I'm sticking to my guns about this. To put it extremely: we should be playing on maps that make interesting games no matter how imba they are, and Blizzard should be forced to patch. Edit: And I think Mech and Protoss are likely in similar positions here. T could end up playing a lot more bio, and Blizzard will hopefully still change that but it would be a lower priority than making Protoss winrates okay, I expect. And they have at times given up on the idea of mech being viable, so I guess there could be some problems on that front if we move in that direction. For maps, proper use of choke points and on occasion maybe some extra gas in the resource ratio could help. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12047 Posts
Edit: And I think Mech and Protoss are likely in similar positions here. T could end up playing a lot more bio, and Blizzard will hopefully still change that but it would be a lower priority than making Protoss winrates okay, I expect. And they have at times given up on the idea of mech being viable, so I guess there could be some problems on that front if we move in that direction. For maps, proper use of choke points and on occasion maybe some extra gas in the resource ratio could help. You can have a "far" third and still have it easily defendable for both Protoss and Terran. Do a fighting spirit style third with a one wide ramp you can either wall or forcefield but have it slightly further from the natural than many maps now and bam you have a good map I'd say. | ||
|
Moonsalt
267 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On November 04 2013 01:49 Aunvilgod wrote: IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position. Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect. Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most. Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map. I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something. Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote: Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most. Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map. I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something. Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds. In my opinion proper army positioning is something the top players should be expected to have down at this point. What I am trying to create is the opportunity for ongoing battles and even trades. I want the T/Z to attack into the Protoss, have an even trade and then have the T/Z go for the next wave of attack. With closer and open 3rds I am pretty much trying to recreate the current 4M TvZ in TvP and PvZ. That should be, in my opinion, the current goal for SC2 mapmakers and Blizzard. I cannot believe people want to see mech with its 200 supply deathball in this game. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote: In my opinion proper army positioning is something the top players should be expected to have down at this point. What I am trying to create is the opportunity for ongoing battles and even trades. I want the T/Z to attack into the Protoss, have an even trade and then have the T/Z go for the next wave of attack. With closer and open 3rds I am pretty much trying to recreate the current 4M TvZ in TvP and PvZ. That should be, in my opinion, the current goal for SC2 mapmakers and Blizzard. I cannot believe people want to see mech with its 200 supply deathball in this game. The thing about this though is that Protoss's natural tactical and strategic inclination is to "save up" their army until they can take a decisive battle because they have so much trouble fighting cost effectively when they're behind. The risk of arriving in such a position by engaging without a clear shot at winning is too much. So I feel overall open 3rds just promote deathball turtling style play from protoss especially. | ||
|
anessie
180 Posts
| ||
| ||
