|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote: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. 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.
I don't find that at all enjoyable. It's just two sides rallying stuff into each other and it really isn't interesting at all.
|
On November 04 2013 03:50 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote:On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote: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. 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. I don't find that at all enjoyable. It's just two sides rallying stuff into each other and it really isn't interesting at all.
The matchup is evolving though. Zergs have, since the Overseer buff, been getting hive more and more often. Terrans have started mixing in Thors. The age of the never ending push seems to have come to an end anyway. From what I have been seeing the matchup is much more diverse now. The compositions remain mainly the same, yes, but they HAVE to settle at one point anyway. Unless you expect Blizzard to buff/nerf the game forever which (1) won't happen and (2) greatly decrease the legitimacy of SC2 as a sport. You don't change the rules of football every few months to keep it interesting either, do you?
And if you still don't like that, what would you like better? A 20 minute turtle until max followed by a move-out and a short fight?
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 04 2013 04:33 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 03:50 Qikz wrote:On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote:On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote: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. 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. I don't find that at all enjoyable. It's just two sides rallying stuff into each other and it really isn't interesting at all. The matchup is evolving though. Zergs have, since the Overseer buff, been getting hive more and more often. Terrans have started mixing in Thors. The age of the never ending push seems to have come to an end anyway. From what I have been seeing the matchup is much more diverse now. The compositions remain mainly the same, yes, but they HAVE to settle at one point anyway. Unless you expect Blizzard to buff/nerf the game forever which (1) won't happen and (2) greatly decrease the legitimacy of SC2 as a sport. You don't change the rules of football every few months to keep it interesting either, do you? And if you still don't like that, what would you like better? A 20 minute turtle until max followed by a move-out and a short fight?
The only reason why mech is currently a 20 minute turtle until max is that where the bases are so close together it's impossible to do any real harassment as mech before your major push. People sit with their army in one huge blob, which then defends all their bases incredibly easy since they're all so close together.
It removes the ability like in SC1 to be roaming around with vultures (hellions) in this instance doing damage wherever they can do it since none of the bases force the opponent to spread out enough to ever actually do any damage at all. Also the thing with SC1 mech is it wasn't 20 minutes turtle until a short fight and game ends, it was all about the enemy preparing and trying to stop the push by constantly trying to do damage, when the push came they'd usually get about two-three armies worth of units to try and stop it and even then, since the bases were further, a lot further apart it meant the other person could rebuild their infrastructure elsewhere and the game would continue despite losing their main.
Maps have bases that are far too close together. They also have too many bases in general and no map other than the Kespa proleague maps Arkanoid and Fighting Spirit ever force anybody to move to another corner of the map to continue expanding. The reason why games end so quickly and very often by base trades is that once you lose your one army, that's the entire game over and you can't ever just lose one base and continue the game, since if they kill one base it usually means they're already on top of your main and you die.
Also the only reason mech has to turtle up is that tanks are bad and smaller number of tanks can't do the job of a lot more so you can't really leave any units at home to defend while you push with small contingencies in the midgame as you'll get counter attacked and die (see Flash vs Curious) and also another thing is, mech can't really do any damage to the enemy without outright having to push into their main army due to all the bases being so close together once again.
People have this very odd conception that smaller maps are what favour maps, when in fact it's maps like Alterzim where mech can actually Flourish as it allows them to be more active on the map with their harassment units (hellions and banshees now I guess) while also pushing forward to take expansions behind and since the bases are further apart and also further away from the enemy it means even if they counter attack you, you have able time to split your army/push slightly and then move back and defend. Smaller maps actually hurt mech far more than people realise.
Akilon Wastes for example is terrible for mech TvP since if it gets past the stage of them getting their fourth base (which wasn't hard for them) it left them with more than enough gas to go Skytoss and although mech could deal with that with their own 4 bases, you couldn't ever really push into the four base toss to actually stop the transition happening or do any harassment since their whole army is on top of everything.
If you want the game to lose even more popularity and have very few viable options for the three races then go ahead, I'm sure if every map continues on the same you and the 10 other people left watching will have a great time.
|
Hmm... Now I'm feeling second thoughts about the half bases I added to Shrieking Breeze.
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map.
|
|
|
This map is more than a bit depressing T_T. And Aunvilgod I'm right up in there with you in regards to your opinions. This is all just theorycrafting and is good fun but I will rue the day that mech becomes anywhere close to near standard because it's absolutely terrible for gameplay. Forcing zerg to go into swarmhost turtle style in response to Terran turtle deathball style is the most boring game (outside of PvZ where both sides turtle, which ALREADY HAPPENS) you can possibly watch OR play.
Bio-mine is awesome. It is amazing to watch and play. It is by far (along with Zerg compositional response) the most interesting composition to play with and has the most utility. Could it have more? YES. But it already STRESSES players. It forces them to get faster work harder and demonstrate skill.
I wish the game could be like that for all match-ups. All the people whining about compositions - there is ALWAYS going to be an optimal composition, get with it! This game should not be a shallow game of counters it should be a game of depth and the flagship match-up (to an extent) demonstrates that.
|
Well I think I pretty much agree in that I don't want deathballs and turtling. I think further thirds would help in that regard and closer thirds make it worse, though.
Whether it's better or worse for mech overall, it's gotta be worse for turtling. More spread out bases I mean.
|
I think Alterzim will be just what the doctor ordered (and single handedly save sc2 lol). I read this mapmaker's analysis and everything he points out seems to me a positive; considering where HOTS is right now. I also can't help remembering everyone's first thoughts about whirlwind and how "obviously too big of a map" it was called when it came out. While it did feel like that for a while, players and play styles adjusted.
In General: The mapmaker thinks that map size will cause more passive turtly play. But with no sight towers and soooo many bases I feel a turtle will be hard pressed to actually kill a player who aggressively takes the map. I have played this map a bit and feel it not as easy to take a 3rd and 4th as Akilon, but it is easier to expand almost indefinitely after that. The third is VERY open and walling it off as toss might be too difficult. That being said, the rush distance will allow for a big defenders advantage (not so much against toss, but that might be toss's saving grace from the sheer size of the map)
A player who takes too many bases however, will be hard pressed to defend them all.
Doom Drops: The main looks very easy to defend from the doom drops and muta harass, while the natural is a actually quite a long walking distance from the third making the natural air defense very important (think calm before the storm).
Base Trades: Seem like they will be more common on this map, and also not nesessarily end the game... With so many bases, I feel it might be more common so see the game stabalize if both players manage to wipe out each others mains and have to rebuild production.
TvT: If the combined mech upgrades and teh tank buff go through, (i feel they will) then mech vs mech might become much more common which many terrans seem to hate. I can't imagine a mech player being able to walk this across the map against a bio player until very late in the game.
For this map I'd expect for bio vs mech to remain a preference decision, and for the edge to go bio (into air) unless we all underestimated what 2.7 firerate will mean in TvT. If the changes don't go through, bio-raven-cattlebruiser might be the norm.
PvT: While this MU is in kind of a rut, and has (debatably) many problems in the early, mid and late game, I don't expect to see this map play like Akilon or any other map (maybe frost a little).
-Early pressures every terran hates to deal with should be slowed down just enough to make them not worth the investment. I'd expect very predictable macro openers from terran, and either full fledged all ins, or just as greedy play from toss.
-Protoss-Death-Balls will not be able to gather up and make the death march as easily as other maps, but with recall and a massive number of pylon positions, I'd expect to see a lot more multi-tasking and hit-and run tactics as games move past the inevitable "all-in phase" of a new map.
-As said before, doom drops at least feel less potent on this map, but drops in the natural, 4th, 5th ect.. seem very strong.
While I'd expect many a nexus snipe, the defenders advantage for protoss feels so strong on this map, I can't see scv pulls working. Both races should have to work much harder to break down their opponent to overcome the map size.
I'm not sold on who this map should favor(leaning towards terran), but I have a feeling we will see units we normally do not normally see, performing tasks they normally don't perform...
ZvT: While this MU has possibly the most action in it and some of the longest games (lets ignore tvt  ) spectators seem to be split on whether they are bored of the repetition or love the mechanics-take-all aspect.
I'd expect the edge to go to zerg on this map.
After the reign of the OP-hellbat-drop followed by the even worse reign of the inno-widow-mide-rally this map might just shake up the match up. Although the MU does change a lot on its own, the existing terran strats will need to be either more aggressive, sharper and hit before zerg can take the map (might not be possible due to size), or be much more passive. I expect Mutas and Lings to reign supreme on this map and expect for terrans to have to dig deep in the hat for the next go-to-tvz-build. Either way, like all the MU id expect longer games, but not in the wtf firecake vs mana kind of way. Which brings up to .... don't watch unless you are a glutton for pain http://us.esl.tv/video/0ed3d83ac361d90e/
ZvP: I have no idea how this map will play out ZvP. However, I can't see protoss ever being suffocated by swarm hosts and static defense on this map, unless already very behind. I am interested to see if the map size + all defense concentrated on the third will be enough for protoss to take their third and keep it against any combination of lings, roachs, hydras, and vipers.
-Mutas will obviously be tempting choices for many reasons: infinite gas, a juicy natural, huge-fucking-map, but pheonix might be just as good, at least defensively.
-2 base all-in: I am not decided on whether the map size and force fields not being too good in the open will be able to overcome the strength of protoss 2-base all-ins, and whether the open-ness of the third will make it impossible to pull off for protoss or impossible not to try. And while I do realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, I feel like the former is more likely.
I'd expect to see more stargates, and warp prisms on this map. Or a completely broken map favoring either race 
Finall Thoughts: I feel like this might be a another attempt from Blizzard to get players to play the game the way the developers (and fans) envisioned...
TLDR
Terran: Mech IS NOW VIABLE....not. But seriously, if terrans don't want to play the late game this map will FORCE them to.
Protoss: Skytoss, recall, warp prism not only powerful, but necessary.
Zerg: Wol had patch-zergs, this might be the birth of the map-zergs (I am fully aware of how terrible that was). Nydus become common...maybe in my dreams.
I hope this map produces lots of macro games with battles in the middle, multitasking being much more important than timings, and all-ins only being used to keep the greed level in check. I'm looking at you CatZ...I can already see your 5 hatch before super strat.
|
On November 04 2013 06:52 Gfire wrote:
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map.
Could... you elaborate??
|
Whirlwind and Akilon was kinda decent map. I would get rid of Derelict Watcher and Polar Night. About the new maps: Star Station is horrible, Alterzim will be ok
|
On November 04 2013 18:27 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 06:52 Gfire wrote:
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map. Could... you elaborate??
If you changed anything about it it would take away from something it has. So there aren't really any mistakes, only features. They might be unwanted features, and we should decide that later, but I can't just say it has anything I would %100 change right away. It's less sloppy than most Blizz maps. More well thought out than most. They did a fair job executing a concept which I think is worth trying even if it doesn't turn out well.
No other blizz maps come to mind that quite do it as well. A lot of them needed some spawns removed right away, though, and if you disregard that aspect of those maps they might be able to qualify.
The aesthetics are pretty good too.
|
On November 05 2013 03:28 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 18:27 EatThePath wrote:On November 04 2013 06:52 Gfire wrote:
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map. Could... you elaborate?? If you changed anything about it it would take away from something it has. So there aren't really any mistakes, only features. They might be unwanted features, and we should decide that later, but I can't just say it has anything I would %100 change right away. It's less sloppy than most Blizz maps. More well thought out than most. They did a fair job executing a concept which I think is worth trying even if it doesn't turn out well. No other blizz maps come to mind that quite do it as well. A lot of them needed some spawns removed right away, though, and if you disregard that aspect of those maps they might be able to qualify. The aesthetics are pretty good too.
Okay, I can agree with that. I find the whole thing totally misguided, but it's definitely worth noting that it was made correctly (finally), so to speak.
|
I just played 6 back-to-back PvZ's on Akilon Wastes and won all of them.
I'm ready to retire the map from the ladder pool now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
