|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Un8wIS.jpg) Gemini Heights(by Travis "Caustic" Willis)Tileset: Bel'Shir Map Size: 132x108 Published on: [NA] [EU] [SEA] [KR]+ Show Spoiler [Publishing Legend] +Green means the map is live and up-to-date in the region.
Blue means the map is live in the region but on an outdated version.
Red means the map is not published to the region. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FAeIDynl.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LhCL0b4l.jpg) + Show Spoiler [v1.2] ++ Show Spoiler [v1.0] +
Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler +v1.3Terrain- 5 and 11 o'clock bases have been shifted outward to increase space and distance
- A backdoor path between the natural and 5/11 o’clock thirds has been added
v1.2General- Updated map dependencies for Heart of the Swarm
Terrain- Updated cliffs and assets to new Heart of the Swarm aesthetics
- 6 and 12 o'clock expansions have been shifted outward to increase space and distance
- High ground chokes leading to 6 and 12 o'clock expansions have been adjusted to be more open
- Map bounds increased from 128x96 to 132x108
- Minor adjustments to cliff edges for main base and first expansion
- Ramps between second and third expansions have been adjusted to feature new collapsible rock towers
Balance- Xel'Naga Towers have been removed
v1.1General- Added new Battle.net custom game description features to the map, including patch notes and screenshots
- Replaced neural lowered supply depots with new neutral unit: unbuildable rocks (destructible)
- Updated map name from "Gemini Heights" to "Galaxy - Gemini Heights" to make it easier to search for and play Galaxy eSports maps on Battle.net
v1.0General
Introduction / Map Concept:
The goal of this map was to continue the experiment with Brood War map proportions. Since I've been making so many 4p maps, I decided to switch it up and do a 2p map for a change. 2p maps in Brood War were almost always one of three dimensions: 128x96, 96x128, and 128x128 (same size as the average 4p BW map).
All in all, I wanted to create a fun 2p map that adhered to Brood War mapmaking principles while avoiding possible abuse of new SC2 mechanics. At the same time, I wanted to utilize some of the fun terrain additions in SC2, such as LOS blockers and destructible rocks. Used in moderation, I think they add a nice bit of flair to a map.
About version 1.2
With Heart of the Swarm, there have been a lot of changes to the game that made me reconsider some of the design decisions in Gemini Heights. The key aspects of this were the map dimensions and the high ground 4th base terrain layout. As a result, version 1.2 introduced changes that I think will allow the map to play better in HotS, while at the same time keeps the spirit of what I was trying to achieve in terms of smaller, more manageable map dimensions.
Additional Details:
Gemini Heights rush distances
Natural-to-natural choke: ~35 worker-seconds
Main-to-main choke: ~46 worker-seconds
Brood War rush info
Natural-to-natural choke rush distances ranged anywhere from 21 to 25 worker-seconds (approx. 30 to 35 SC2 worker-seconds) in Brood War KeSPA maps. Main-to-main choke rush distances ranged anywhere from 28 to 32 worker-seconds (approx. 40 to 45 SC2 worker seconds) for those same KeSPA BW maps. Gemini Heights features rush distances that would be amongst the longest in any average KeSPA Brood War map featured in tournaments such as MSL, OSL, or Proleague.
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!
Twitter: @galaxyesports
Facebook: http://facebook.com/galaxyesports
Website: http://galaxyesports.com
Contact the mapmaker by email at caustic [at] galaxyesports [dot] com
|
The middle seems somewhat awkward, but this map does look like a great late game map.
It seems to me that if you widened the bounds slightly and pushed the 3rds back a bit positioning and walling off would be much more comfortable. The way they are right now encourages engagements on ramps. This in turn encourages turtleing.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4NL1J.png)
This is a really bad angle for Protoss which really makes taking a 3rd hard, especially with how easy it is to flank.
Another thing adding to this is how close that high-ground ramp is allowing for units to run down that rather suddenly.
|
On January 18 2013 08:40 Veloh15 wrote:
The middle seems somewhat awkward, but this map does look like a great late game map.
It seems to me that if you widened the bounds slightly and pushed the 3rds back a bit positioning and walling off would be much more comfortable. The way they are right now encourages engagements on ramps. This in turn encourages turtleing.
If you're talking about the double-width ramps at the north and south, that'd be a terrible choice to have your main army push through there. The design of this map isn't intended to accommodate death balls roaming down every path; they're designed for smaller chunks of units or harassment/run-bys, later to be utilized as a fast path between third and fourth.
The map also isn't designed with a "sit back, wall off, and turtle" mentality when it comes to taking a third. Pressure plays will more than likely be necessary to safely secure additional bases. In this regard I'm a little bit confused about your overall message here; on one hand you say it's not easy to wall off and position yourself defensively in a comfortable manner (turtle), but on the other you say that this encourages turtling.
If I'm mistaken somewhere, please clarify for me. I don't mean to misinterpret you.
On January 18 2013 08:40 Veloh15 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is a really bad angle for Protoss which really makes taking a 3rd hard, especially with how easy it is to flank. Another thing adding to this is how close that high-ground ramp is allowing for units to run down that rather suddenly.
I'd agree that it'd be bad for a Protoss to sit their army right where you marked it. Why would a Protoss position themselves right there, exactly?
|
inb4 circle syndrome! lol
In all seriousness though, that could be an issue. Excellent use of space though!
|
I think the third should be scooted closer to the nat just a touch, though.
|
Rush distance is surprisingly long considering what you'd expect from such a small map.
I do feel the far(ish) thirds result in some kinda close together expos on the sides, and it will be tough to go to a fifth base here for both players. It might not really be a problem, though.
If you're going to go to this extreme in terms of map size, I think you don't really need such a wide gap around the edge of the main. You can get away with making it at least as little as cloud kingdom, I'm sure.
|
On January 18 2013 09:28 lorestarcraft wrote:
inb4 circle syndrome! lol
In all seriousness though, that could be an issue. Excellent use of space though!
There are no ambiguous, circular expansion flows on this map, though. o.o Even then, what we've dubbed "circle syndrome" is more of a design choice than an issue (Koreans often utilize it in their maps).
On January 18 2013 09:30 lorestarcraft wrote:
I think the third should be scooted closer to the nat just a touch, though.
Third base distance uses the Korean standard (what you see on maps like Daybreak). In this regard, I'm skeptical that distances would need to be adjusted.
On January 18 2013 09:39 Gfire wrote:
Rush distance is surprisingly long considering what you'd expect from such a small map.
I do feel the far(ish) thirds result in some kinda close together expos on the sides, and it will be tough to go to a fifth base here for both players. It might not really be a problem, though.
If you're going to go to this extreme in terms of map size, I think you don't really need such a wide gap around the edge of the main. You can get away with making it at least as little as cloud kingdom, I'm sure.
The gap around the main was a design choice. Given that this map branches away from what's popularly seen in SC2 in favour of emulating Brood War style, I didn't want all-ins such as blink stalker or elevator play to be overpowering (people tend to lean toward all-ins and cheese when they're not comfortable).
As for the rush distance, it's just meeting a fairly standard distance on what was once a standard map size. Excessive map dimensions to ensure reasonable rush distances are nothing more than a band-aid for poor terrain design, IMO.
|
On January 18 2013 09:46 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 09:28 lorestarcraft wrote:
inb4 circle syndrome! lol
In all seriousness though, that could be an issue. Excellent use of space though! There are no ambiguous, circular expansion flows on this map, though. o.o Even then, what we've dubbed "circle syndrome" is more of a design choice than an issue (Koreans often utilize it in their maps). Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 09:30 lorestarcraft wrote:
I think the third should be scooted closer to the nat just a touch, though. Third base distance uses the Korean standard (what you see on maps like Daybreak). In this regard, I'm skeptical that distances would need to be adjusted.
On maps like that the pathway is very well protected. Allowing for a deathball to bob back and forth between main and natural. Here the deathball is extremely exposed and can be forced into engagements that favor the opponent (removing defender's advantage) If you want to break up the death ball I would make an essentially un-attackable pathway, but make it narrow and behind the larger more exposed pathway. This allows small groups of units to move between the bases in a safe manor, but also makes it hard for a deathball to easily move back and forth something that is basically a given on maps like Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, and Daybreak.
I think I didn't emphasize this enough on my first post but I really like how this map is made and how the bases are layered. I have never seen a map iterated like this before, my feedback is just trying to help make it perfect! 
|
On January 18 2013 09:56 Veloh15 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 09:46 iamcaustic wrote:On January 18 2013 09:28 lorestarcraft wrote:
inb4 circle syndrome! lol
In all seriousness though, that could be an issue. Excellent use of space though! There are no ambiguous, circular expansion flows on this map, though. o.o Even then, what we've dubbed "circle syndrome" is more of a design choice than an issue (Koreans often utilize it in their maps). On January 18 2013 09:30 lorestarcraft wrote:
I think the third should be scooted closer to the nat just a touch, though. Third base distance uses the Korean standard (what you see on maps like Daybreak). In this regard, I'm skeptical that distances would need to be adjusted. On maps like that the pathway is very well protected. Allowing for a deathball to bob back and forth between main and natural. Here the deathball is extremely exposed and can be forced into engagements that favor the opponent (removing defender's advantage) If you want to break up the death ball I would make an essentially un-attackable pathway, but make it narrow and behind the larger more exposed pathway. This allows small groups of units to move between the bases in a safe manor, but also makes it hard for a deathball to easily move back and forth something that is basically a given on maps like Cloud Kingdom, Ohana, and Daybreak. I think I didn't emphasize this enough on my first post but I really like how this map is made and how the bases are layered. I have never seen a map iterated like this before, my feedback is just trying to help make it perfect!
Don't get me wrong, I always appreciate the feedback. My responses are always to try and get more out of the discussion, especially in cases where I might not understand something.
In response to the rest of your post, might I offer some examples of precedent where acquiring the third is equal or greater in difficulty than on Gemini Heights:
Bel'Shir Vestige
+ Show Spoiler +
Neo Planet S
+ Show Spoiler +
(Depends which base you take)
Abyssal City
+ Show Spoiler +
Edit: I bring these up is because I'm not seeing a reason why the third would need to be adjusted to improve it. Making un-attackable pathways, for example, doesn't break up a death ball, it merely makes it more difficult for an aggressive, multi-tasking player to put on pressure and/or do damage. That only encourages passive death ball play, which is the opposite effect you desire.
(Edit-inception: Just thought of this; are you talking about those smaller, low-ground pathways leading to the far-corner bases on Cloud Kingdom? If so, that's essentially what the north/south paths on Gemini Heights do.)
Furthermore, defender's advantage has nothing to do with winning engagements if you're defending. It's about how production cycles work in an RTS game. Assuming both players invest the same amount into their army, the general idea is that when an attacker reaches their opponent, the time taken to cross the map will result in the defending army having an additional production cycle of units over what the attacking army has. Ergo, there is an inherent advantage to the defender due to the faster production rally. There's more to it, of course (e.g. scouting an impending attack and using the attacker's travel time to prepare adequate defence), but that's the gist of it.
It's also why PvP was nothing but 4gate for the longest time, as the warp-in mechanic allows Protoss to completely circumvent the defender's advantage. A defending Protoss who didn't 4gate (i.e. have a perfectly equivalent army strength at the time of the attack) could only survive by utilizing forcefields on their main base ramp to delay the opponent's attack long enough to get their adequate tech out (usually immortals). This delay essentially simulates the lost defender's advantage in this case.
|
Whoa, okay, I recommend moving away from a defender's advantage discussion. That is too big a topic to argue about here for the sake of judging one 3rd base. Suffice to say, I think most people wouldn' agree completely with how you've characterized the issues. ...Unless you think it's necessary of course.
The 3rd on this map is at least as hard in PvZ as any map yet used for competitive play, with the exception of that prodig map used in one ESL or IEM or whatever, with the long arm 3rds. PvZ is the culprit in these "3rd is too hard" arguments, just to be overclear. Here, there's no way to take an early 3rd against roach max pressure unless you just dig in with wall/cannons and hope for the best. There's no kind of positioning or micro you can use to win the upper hand, the terrain is too wide and long. That's fine in and of itself perhaps, but don't delude yourself that's not the situation.
In general I feel like this map is just too small, which I think is exacerbated, or brought to the front, by the awkward 5th base and the far-too-easy 4th base. I really like the ideas in it, but honestly I wish it was at least 10% larger dimensions or it had some redesign on the routes and base placement to utilize the complete 128x96 area. Remember that in BW a lot of bases were up against the edge of the map, which is harder to do successfully in SC2.
Are you dead set on calling this done? I really think it could use some discussion and revision, multiple times even. Or it can be a test case for exploring something you are trying to get at?
Maybe you can say more about what you think is important about how this map turned out beyond trying to fit SC2 into BW sized pants, it would help me be more constructive. Right now I have in one hand "this is really nicely assembled" and in the other "this isn't working".
|
On January 18 2013 12:01 EatThePath wrote:Whoa, okay, I recommend moving away from a defender's advantage discussion. That is too big a topic to argue about here for the sake of judging one 3rd base. Suffice to say, I think most people wouldn' agree completely with how you've characterized the issues. ...Unless you think it's necessary of course. The 3rd on this map is at least as hard in PvZ as any map yet used for competitive play, with the exception of that prodig map used in one ESL or IEM or whatever, with the long arm 3rds. PvZ is the culprit in these "3rd is too hard" arguments, just to be overclear. Here, there's no way to take an early 3rd against roach max pressure unless you just dig in with wall/cannons and hope for the best. There's no kind of positioning or micro you can use to win the upper hand, the terrain is too wide and long. That's fine in and of itself perhaps, but don't delude yourself that's not the situation. In general I feel like this map is just too small, which I think is exacerbated, or brought to the front, by the awkward 5th base and the far-too-easy 4th base. I really like the ideas in it, but honestly I wish it was at least 10% larger dimensions or it had some redesign on the routes and base placement to utilize the complete 128x96 area. Remember that in BW a lot of bases were up against the edge of the map, which is harder to do successfully in SC2. Are you dead set on calling this done? I really think it could use some discussion and revision, multiple times even. Or it can be a test case for exploring something you are trying to get at? Maybe you can say more about what you think is important about how this map turned out beyond trying to fit SC2 into BW sized pants, it would help me be more constructive. Right now I have in one hand "this is really nicely assembled" and in the other "this isn't working".
I have some disagreement in terms of difficulty of the third, as I noted in my previous comment. There have definitely been more difficult thirds in recent (and current) competitive play. Saying otherwise is a clear indication that you haven't played either this map, or the maps that feature more difficult thirds. PvZ is always the culprit when it comes to third bases, of course, but one thing that isn't being considered for this map is the Protoss' ability to keep a Zerg's economy in check with pressure play. The Stephano roach max is only an issue if Zerg can take a third uncontested so they can have the fast economy to max out by 12 minutes. I understand that has become incredibly hard to do for Protoss thanks to large maps like Whirlwind (tournaments) or Condemned Ridge (ladder), but you can't apply the logic of a map with those kind of dimensions (or alternatively, the overly-easily defendable thirds for Zerg of maps like Ohana, Antiga Shipyard, and Entombed Valley) to this one. If you're telling me that Protoss has no aggressive options on this map against a fast third into roach max, I'd appreciate an explanation thereof.
Curious why you find the fourth to be far too easy. I'd like your input on that. As for the 5th, it's supposed to be difficult. Any good map has a difficult 5th base. Not sure why you call it awkward though; how is it any different from the 5th on a map such as Cloud Kingdom?
As for calling it done, not entirely. It's done for a version 1.0 though. I will say, however, that the only thing I have on my list of possible changes at the moment would be the Xel'Naga Watchtowers. I wanted to try utilizing them first because I wanted the cute interaction between XNT and LOS blockers, but depending how things pan out I may consider removing them as I did on Abaddon Blaze. I have no interest in modifying more fundamental aspects such as map dimensions, base placements, and general map flow. This isn't a WIP map.
|
On January 18 2013 12:35 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 12:01 EatThePath wrote:Whoa, okay, I recommend moving away from a defender's advantage discussion. That is too big a topic to argue about here for the sake of judging one 3rd base. Suffice to say, I think most people wouldn' agree completely with how you've characterized the issues. ...Unless you think it's necessary of course. The 3rd on this map is at least as hard in PvZ as any map yet used for competitive play, with the exception of that prodig map used in one ESL or IEM or whatever, with the long arm 3rds. PvZ is the culprit in these "3rd is too hard" arguments, just to be overclear. Here, there's no way to take an early 3rd against roach max pressure unless you just dig in with wall/cannons and hope for the best. There's no kind of positioning or micro you can use to win the upper hand, the terrain is too wide and long. That's fine in and of itself perhaps, but don't delude yourself that's not the situation. In general I feel like this map is just too small, which I think is exacerbated, or brought to the front, by the awkward 5th base and the far-too-easy 4th base. I really like the ideas in it, but honestly I wish it was at least 10% larger dimensions or it had some redesign on the routes and base placement to utilize the complete 128x96 area. Remember that in BW a lot of bases were up against the edge of the map, which is harder to do successfully in SC2. Are you dead set on calling this done? I really think it could use some discussion and revision, multiple times even. Or it can be a test case for exploring something you are trying to get at? Maybe you can say more about what you think is important about how this map turned out beyond trying to fit SC2 into BW sized pants, it would help me be more constructive. Right now I have in one hand "this is really nicely assembled" and in the other "this isn't working". I have some disagreement in terms of difficulty of the third, as I noted in my previous comment. There have definitely been more difficult thirds in recent (and current) competitive play. Saying otherwise is a clear indication that you haven't played either this map, or the maps that feature more difficult thirds. PvZ is always the culprit when it comes to third bases, of course, but one thing that isn't being considered for this map is the Protoss' ability to keep a Zerg's economy in check with pressure play. The Stephano roach max is only an issue if Zerg can take a third uncontested so they can have the fast economy to max out by 12 minutes. I understand that has become incredibly hard to do for Protoss thanks to large maps like Whirlwind (tournaments) or Condemned Ridge (ladder), but you can't apply the logic of a map with those kind of dimensions (or alternatively, the overly-easily defendable thirds for Zerg of maps like Ohana, Antiga Shipyard, and Entombed Valley) to this one. If you're telling me that Protoss has no aggressive options on this map against a fast third into roach max, I'd appreciate an explanation thereof. Curious why you find the fourth to be far too easy. I'd like your input on that. As for the 5th, it's supposed to be difficult. Any good map has a difficult 5th base. Not sure why you call it awkward though; how is it any different from the 5th on a map such as Cloud Kingdom? As for calling it done, not entirely. It's done for a version 1.0 though. I will say, however, that the only thing I have on my list of possible changes at the moment would be the Xel'Naga Watchtowers. I wanted to try utilizing them first because I wanted the cute interaction between XNT and LOS blockers, but depending how things pan out I may consider removing them as I did on Abaddon Blaze. I have no interest in modifying more fundamental aspects such as map dimensions, base placements, and general map flow. This isn't a WIP map.
I think the orientation of the third makes it more difficult than necessarily the distance. If the path was position where the army didn't have to bounce around an obstruction, then try to collapse on units already in a better position it would be better.
|
On January 18 2013 15:56 lorestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 12:35 iamcaustic wrote:On January 18 2013 12:01 EatThePath wrote:Whoa, okay, I recommend moving away from a defender's advantage discussion. That is too big a topic to argue about here for the sake of judging one 3rd base. Suffice to say, I think most people wouldn' agree completely with how you've characterized the issues. ...Unless you think it's necessary of course. The 3rd on this map is at least as hard in PvZ as any map yet used for competitive play, with the exception of that prodig map used in one ESL or IEM or whatever, with the long arm 3rds. PvZ is the culprit in these "3rd is too hard" arguments, just to be overclear. Here, there's no way to take an early 3rd against roach max pressure unless you just dig in with wall/cannons and hope for the best. There's no kind of positioning or micro you can use to win the upper hand, the terrain is too wide and long. That's fine in and of itself perhaps, but don't delude yourself that's not the situation. In general I feel like this map is just too small, which I think is exacerbated, or brought to the front, by the awkward 5th base and the far-too-easy 4th base. I really like the ideas in it, but honestly I wish it was at least 10% larger dimensions or it had some redesign on the routes and base placement to utilize the complete 128x96 area. Remember that in BW a lot of bases were up against the edge of the map, which is harder to do successfully in SC2. Are you dead set on calling this done? I really think it could use some discussion and revision, multiple times even. Or it can be a test case for exploring something you are trying to get at? Maybe you can say more about what you think is important about how this map turned out beyond trying to fit SC2 into BW sized pants, it would help me be more constructive. Right now I have in one hand "this is really nicely assembled" and in the other "this isn't working". I have some disagreement in terms of difficulty of the third, as I noted in my previous comment. There have definitely been more difficult thirds in recent (and current) competitive play. Saying otherwise is a clear indication that you haven't played either this map, or the maps that feature more difficult thirds. PvZ is always the culprit when it comes to third bases, of course, but one thing that isn't being considered for this map is the Protoss' ability to keep a Zerg's economy in check with pressure play. The Stephano roach max is only an issue if Zerg can take a third uncontested so they can have the fast economy to max out by 12 minutes. I understand that has become incredibly hard to do for Protoss thanks to large maps like Whirlwind (tournaments) or Condemned Ridge (ladder), but you can't apply the logic of a map with those kind of dimensions (or alternatively, the overly-easily defendable thirds for Zerg of maps like Ohana, Antiga Shipyard, and Entombed Valley) to this one. If you're telling me that Protoss has no aggressive options on this map against a fast third into roach max, I'd appreciate an explanation thereof. Curious why you find the fourth to be far too easy. I'd like your input on that. As for the 5th, it's supposed to be difficult. Any good map has a difficult 5th base. Not sure why you call it awkward though; how is it any different from the 5th on a map such as Cloud Kingdom? As for calling it done, not entirely. It's done for a version 1.0 though. I will say, however, that the only thing I have on my list of possible changes at the moment would be the Xel'Naga Watchtowers. I wanted to try utilizing them first because I wanted the cute interaction between XNT and LOS blockers, but depending how things pan out I may consider removing them as I did on Abaddon Blaze. I have no interest in modifying more fundamental aspects such as map dimensions, base placements, and general map flow. This isn't a WIP map. I think the orientation of the third makes it more difficult than necessarily the distance. If the path was position where the army didn't have to bounce around an obstruction, then try to collapse on units already in a better position it would be better.
Not sure if I understand, sorry mate. @_@; Two questions: first, what orientation might you consider better and second, what obstruction?
|
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it.
|
On January 19 2013 03:36 Gfire wrote:
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it.
The problem with shortness and directness in SC2 is that it makes the game even more one-fight-and-it's-over. I actually think the opposite of what you said is more often the case. A longer attack distance will allow a player to fail aggression without losing the game directly afterward.
The more experienced and capable players become, the more they will be able to stay in the game with a disadvantage, so you might say long distances is a crutch in that regard, but I also think it's just the nature of SC2 to a certain extent.
No question that longer distances make it harder to do timings. I think you have to weigh the options and the desired character of a map will help you decide.
@caustic - will respond more in a bit
|
Yes, in the end, it really is almost all about the character of the map.
|
On January 19 2013 03:36 Gfire wrote:
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it.
These are my sentiments exactly.
On January 19 2013 03:49 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:36 Gfire wrote:
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it. The problem with shortness and directness in SC2 is that it makes the game even more one-fight-and-it's-over. I actually think the opposite of what you said is more often the case. A longer attack distance will allow a player to fail aggression without losing the game directly afterward. The more experienced and capable players become, the more they will be able to stay in the game with a disadvantage, so you might say long distances is a crutch in that regard, but I also think it's just the nature of SC2 to a certain extent. No question that longer distances make it harder to do timings. I think you have to weigh the options and the desired character of a map will help you decide. @caustic - will respond more in a bit
Sorry EatThePath, but I can't help but disagree once again. First, we need to identify what is meant by "failed aggression". If we're just talking about a player who isn't able to find a good opportunity to deal damage, that is not going to result in losing the game immediately afterward so long as they're smart and do things such as expand behind their pressure. If we're talking about a player who ends up losing his entire army inefficiently, then that fault lay with the player. In Brood War, there was a famous player who always aggressively attacked and often failed spectacularly. His ID was IrOn; his nickname, "Suicide Toss". Today we know him as SK_MC.
Making spectacular blunders in a game should open windows of opportunity to be punished. It's what I would consider one of the core issues in SC2 right now, that players can mess up pretty bad but still remain in the game because it's nearly impossible to put on pressure or successfully execute timing attacks on some of these larger maps.
That said, I also agree that it's a matter of map character. In this case, I choose the character of Brood War (specifically, the clarity of action and consequence), as I personally find it much more entertaining to both play and watch.
|
On January 18 2013 12:35 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 12:01 EatThePath wrote:Whoa, okay, I recommend moving away from a defender's advantage discussion. That is too big a topic to argue about here for the sake of judging one 3rd base. Suffice to say, I think most people wouldn' agree completely with how you've characterized the issues. ...Unless you think it's necessary of course. The 3rd on this map is at least as hard in PvZ as any map yet used for competitive play, with the exception of that prodig map used in one ESL or IEM or whatever, with the long arm 3rds. PvZ is the culprit in these "3rd is too hard" arguments, just to be overclear. Here, there's no way to take an early 3rd against roach max pressure unless you just dig in with wall/cannons and hope for the best. There's no kind of positioning or micro you can use to win the upper hand, the terrain is too wide and long. That's fine in and of itself perhaps, but don't delude yourself that's not the situation. In general I feel like this map is just too small, which I think is exacerbated, or brought to the front, by the awkward 5th base and the far-too-easy 4th base. I really like the ideas in it, but honestly I wish it was at least 10% larger dimensions or it had some redesign on the routes and base placement to utilize the complete 128x96 area. Remember that in BW a lot of bases were up against the edge of the map, which is harder to do successfully in SC2. Are you dead set on calling this done? I really think it could use some discussion and revision, multiple times even. Or it can be a test case for exploring something you are trying to get at? Maybe you can say more about what you think is important about how this map turned out beyond trying to fit SC2 into BW sized pants, it would help me be more constructive. Right now I have in one hand "this is really nicely assembled" and in the other "this isn't working". I have some disagreement in terms of difficulty of the third, as I noted in my previous comment. There have definitely been more difficult thirds in recent (and current) competitive play. Saying otherwise is a clear indication that you haven't played either this map, or the maps that feature more difficult thirds. PvZ is always the culprit when it comes to third bases, of course, but one thing that isn't being considered for this map is the Protoss' ability to keep a Zerg's economy in check with pressure play. The Stephano roach max is only an issue if Zerg can take a third uncontested so they can have the fast economy to max out by 12 minutes. I understand that has become incredibly hard to do for Protoss thanks to large maps like Whirlwind (tournaments) or Condemned Ridge (ladder), but you can't apply the logic of a map with those kind of dimensions (or alternatively, the overly-easily defendable thirds for Zerg of maps like Ohana, Antiga Shipyard, and Entombed Valley) to this one. If you're telling me that Protoss has no aggressive options on this map against a fast third into roach max, I'd appreciate an explanation thereof. Curious why you find the fourth to be far too easy. I'd like your input on that. As for the 5th, it's supposed to be difficult. Any good map has a difficult 5th base. Not sure why you call it awkward though; how is it any different from the 5th on a map such as Cloud Kingdom? As for calling it done, not entirely. It's done for a version 1.0 though. I will say, however, that the only thing I have on my list of possible changes at the moment would be the Xel'Naga Watchtowers. I wanted to try utilizing them first because I wanted the cute interaction between XNT and LOS blockers, but depending how things pan out I may consider removing them as I did on Abaddon Blaze. I have no interest in modifying more fundamental aspects such as map dimensions, base placements, and general map flow. This isn't a WIP map.
You're right, I haven't played this map. It might be easier to pressure, which is a point I overlooked, but I did so because the last 2 years have shown me that pressure is as all-in as immortal sentry. It relies on poor play from the zerg, or from excellent execution. In any case, you have a small window to do the damage you need to do, and afterward both players can proceed normally. To me it's not a symmetrical option. If you pressure successfully, the game is at parity, unless the zerg didn't handle themselves. I'll gladly get deeper into this, but maybe we should do that on skype. Anyway a lot of games develop into even late games from the situations we're talking about, in spite of my dire outlook, so right now it's fine, but I think WoL has gone as far as it can for PvZ and there's little more protoss can do besides mindgame a zerg -- you can't really outplay a zerg so much as hope they make some mistakes. Annnnnnnyway...
The 3rd isn't exceptionally hard, I just wanted to point out that it was on par with some of the "bad for PvZ" maps. Which is fine too, depending on style choice.
The 4th is easy because of the tower and the proximity. If you got rid of the tower it'd go a long way towards fixing this. If you keep the LosB it's probably fine, since that would help the attacker more in many cases, unless the defender had his high ground midmap. A defending army near the 3rd is also near the 4th, so it's hard to present a credible threat without threatening the main/natural to pull the defender there.
The 5th is awkward because if both players take it, it leans toward base race because of the proximity to the enemy natural. This is where the circle syndrome comments were headed. If this was a 6th base instead I wouldn't complain, and that'd be more comparable to Cloud Kingdom. But that is perhaps another valid style choice, although I feel like maps should provide stable 5 bases or if not that, at least 6.
On January 19 2013 05:02 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:36 Gfire wrote:
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it. These are my sentiments exactly. Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:49 EatThePath wrote:On January 19 2013 03:36 Gfire wrote:
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it. The problem with shortness and directness in SC2 is that it makes the game even more one-fight-and-it's-over. I actually think the opposite of what you said is more often the case. A longer attack distance will allow a player to fail aggression without losing the game directly afterward. The more experienced and capable players become, the more they will be able to stay in the game with a disadvantage, so you might say long distances is a crutch in that regard, but I also think it's just the nature of SC2 to a certain extent. No question that longer distances make it harder to do timings. I think you have to weigh the options and the desired character of a map will help you decide. @caustic - will respond more in a bit Sorry EatThePath, but I can't help but disagree once again. First, we need to identify what is meant by "failed aggression". If we're just talking about a player who isn't able to find a good opportunity to deal damage, that is not going to result in losing the game immediately afterward so long as they're smart and do things such as expand behind their pressure. If we're talking about a player who ends up losing his entire army inefficiently, then that fault lay with the player. In Brood War, there was a famous player who always aggressively attacked and often failed spectacularly. His ID was IrOn; his nickname, "Suicide Toss". Today we know him as SK_MC. Making spectacular blunders in a game should open windows of opportunity to be punished. It's what I would consider one of the core issues in SC2 right now, that players can mess up pretty bad but still remain in the game because it's nearly impossible to put on pressure or successfully execute timing attacks on some of these larger maps. That said, I also agree that it's a matter of map character. In this case, I choose the character of Brood War (specifically, the clarity of action and consequence), as I personally find it much more entertaining to both play and watch.
Ha! ^_^
Your contention about large maps allowing blunders may have some truth, but I think you can pin that fault more on the 3 base economy cap, but I'm not even sure that happens? Personally I have always been really disappointed by the utter helplessness of a player who makes a bad engagement. Have we been watching the same game for the last 2 years? To me that has been the dominating feature of most SC2 pro matches to this day, and I am willing to put up with whatever bandaid helps alleviate it. At this stage of player skill and metagame development, it might be time for smaller maps. I am inclined to think it'll just lead to one-fight games. However, I might end up agreeing with you eventually if this is all just a matter of taste and my perception of "fair" begins to tire me.
I could say more but I defer.
[edit] If you want proof I'm not mortally opposed to you and your third base, just look at my submission to the latest map jam.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On January 19 2013 11:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 12:35 iamcaustic wrote:On January 18 2013 12:01 EatThePath wrote:Whoa, okay, I recommend moving away from a defender's advantage discussion. That is too big a topic to argue about here for the sake of judging one 3rd base. Suffice to say, I think most people wouldn' agree completely with how you've characterized the issues. ...Unless you think it's necessary of course. The 3rd on this map is at least as hard in PvZ as any map yet used for competitive play, with the exception of that prodig map used in one ESL or IEM or whatever, with the long arm 3rds. PvZ is the culprit in these "3rd is too hard" arguments, just to be overclear. Here, there's no way to take an early 3rd against roach max pressure unless you just dig in with wall/cannons and hope for the best. There's no kind of positioning or micro you can use to win the upper hand, the terrain is too wide and long. That's fine in and of itself perhaps, but don't delude yourself that's not the situation. In general I feel like this map is just too small, which I think is exacerbated, or brought to the front, by the awkward 5th base and the far-too-easy 4th base. I really like the ideas in it, but honestly I wish it was at least 10% larger dimensions or it had some redesign on the routes and base placement to utilize the complete 128x96 area. Remember that in BW a lot of bases were up against the edge of the map, which is harder to do successfully in SC2. Are you dead set on calling this done? I really think it could use some discussion and revision, multiple times even. Or it can be a test case for exploring something you are trying to get at? Maybe you can say more about what you think is important about how this map turned out beyond trying to fit SC2 into BW sized pants, it would help me be more constructive. Right now I have in one hand "this is really nicely assembled" and in the other "this isn't working". I have some disagreement in terms of difficulty of the third, as I noted in my previous comment. There have definitely been more difficult thirds in recent (and current) competitive play. Saying otherwise is a clear indication that you haven't played either this map, or the maps that feature more difficult thirds. PvZ is always the culprit when it comes to third bases, of course, but one thing that isn't being considered for this map is the Protoss' ability to keep a Zerg's economy in check with pressure play. The Stephano roach max is only an issue if Zerg can take a third uncontested so they can have the fast economy to max out by 12 minutes. I understand that has become incredibly hard to do for Protoss thanks to large maps like Whirlwind (tournaments) or Condemned Ridge (ladder), but you can't apply the logic of a map with those kind of dimensions (or alternatively, the overly-easily defendable thirds for Zerg of maps like Ohana, Antiga Shipyard, and Entombed Valley) to this one. If you're telling me that Protoss has no aggressive options on this map against a fast third into roach max, I'd appreciate an explanation thereof. Curious why you find the fourth to be far too easy. I'd like your input on that. As for the 5th, it's supposed to be difficult. Any good map has a difficult 5th base. Not sure why you call it awkward though; how is it any different from the 5th on a map such as Cloud Kingdom? As for calling it done, not entirely. It's done for a version 1.0 though. I will say, however, that the only thing I have on my list of possible changes at the moment would be the Xel'Naga Watchtowers. I wanted to try utilizing them first because I wanted the cute interaction between XNT and LOS blockers, but depending how things pan out I may consider removing them as I did on Abaddon Blaze. I have no interest in modifying more fundamental aspects such as map dimensions, base placements, and general map flow. This isn't a WIP map. You're right, I haven't played this map. It might be easier to pressure, which is a point I overlooked, but I did so because the last 2 years have shown me that pressure is as all-in as immortal sentry. It relies on poor play from the zerg, or from excellent execution. In any case, you have a small window to do the damage you need to do, and afterward both players can proceed normally. To me it's not a symmetrical option. If you pressure successfully, the game is at parity, unless the zerg didn't handle themselves. I'll gladly get deeper into this, but maybe we should do that on skype. Anyway a lot of games develop into even late games from the situations we're talking about, in spite of my dire outlook, so right now it's fine, but I think WoL has gone as far as it can for PvZ and there's little more protoss can do besides mindgame a zerg -- you can't really outplay a zerg so much as hope they make some mistakes. Annnnnnnyway...
I think the issue is that you're applying a very generic theorycraft to a map that, by design, doesn't follow those rules. What you say is quite true for a map such as Entombed Valley, for example.
You also seem to have a mistaken perception of pressure play. Not all pressure plays are "deal damage"; many times it's simply establishing a presence on the board and forcing the opponent to play defensively in fear of a possible attack, while you actually safely expand behind. Posturing, not committing. Another reason it's done against Zerg is to force units instead of drones -- keeping their economy in check without actually needing to do damage. It's also not very effective against Zerg on larger and more open maps for many obvious reasons, so I'm not completely surprised it wasn't contemplated in your initial critique.
On January 19 2013 11:55 EatThePath wrote:
The 3rd isn't exceptionally hard, I just wanted to point out that it was on par with some of the "bad for PvZ" maps. Which is fine too, depending on style choice.
I disagree just a bit, mainly based on what I just noted above and mentioned in previous comments. Maps like, for example, Bel'Shir Vestige and Abyssal City definitely feature more difficult to take thirds for Protoss just based on map design and distances, while also featuring much longer distances to the opponent's third that make it very hard to perform pressure plays without committing heavily. I'll definitely agree that it's no Ohana or Entombed Valley, though. 
On January 19 2013 11:55 EatThePath wrote:
The 4th is easy because of the tower and the proximity. If you got rid of the tower it'd go a long way towards fixing this. If you keep the LosB it's probably fine, since that would help the attacker more in many cases, unless the defender had his high ground midmap. A defending army near the 3rd is also near the 4th, so it's hard to present a credible threat without threatening the main/natural to pull the defender there.
Ah, I see. Other elements of the map have to be taken into consideration as well when discussing this point, though. You note this idea when you talk about threatening the main/natural. Beyond just that, there's also the harass-able cliff at the 4th, which is a fairly short distance for the attacker to reach. Because these two key targets are very spread apart and the tower location provides almost no early warning for it, I don't think the towers are too powerful. That said, I'm not 100% sure how this will work out, which is why removal of the towers is on my list of possible changes.
On January 19 2013 11:55 EatThePath wrote:
The 5th is awkward because if both players take it, it leans toward base race because of the proximity to the enemy natural. This is where the circle syndrome comments were headed. If this was a 6th base instead I wouldn't complain, and that'd be more comparable to Cloud Kingdom. But that is perhaps another valid style choice, although I feel like maps should provide stable 5 bases or if not that, at least 6.
That would be the opponent's 5th. The way this map works places your 5th close to the opponent's 4th. In turn, the north and south points of the map become big areas of contention in the late game. I think it would be silly to try and take a 5th base so close to your opponent's natural. Perhaps it is this misreading of the map that's causing some confusion. Well, I guess you could try to take that base as your 5th but I wouldn't recommend it. Basically look at it this way: assuming all bases are taken, the map should be perfectly split vertically.
I also disagree heavily with the notion that maps should provide 5 or 6 stable bases per player if I'm understanding you correctly. 3 to 4 bases is what's necessary to reach late game in a SC2 match. The harder it is to take the 4th, the more likely you're going to see the mid game extended. Once you acquire those 7th and 8th geysers, that's when you really see the capacity to safely transition into late game (it's possible on 3 base, but safer on 4). Anything beyond that merely provides an extension to the game before you start looking at a mined out end game scenario. In the worst case, making those additional bases too stable opens opportunities for Zerg to "run away" on you, where their vespene income becomes so great so quickly that they can sit behind their cost-efficient late game and never have to worry about re-maxing anything they lost. Keeping those bases more unstable leaves more room for back-and-forth play in the late game, stifling your opponent's remaining income while trying to secure your own.
On January 19 2013 11:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 05:02 iamcaustic wrote:On January 19 2013 03:36 Gfire wrote:
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it. These are my sentiments exactly. On January 19 2013 03:49 EatThePath wrote:On January 19 2013 03:36 Gfire wrote:
I think the setup of the third is fine. I guess the possible difference it has from other maps like vestige is that it's closer to the opponent. It's not a straight-shot from the opponent's nat to get there at all, so it's still pretty long, but I think shorter than some current tournament maps, at least. I don't expect it's an issue, though. In fact I like a shorter distance so you might be encouraged to do some aggression without having to really commit to it. The problem with shortness and directness in SC2 is that it makes the game even more one-fight-and-it's-over. I actually think the opposite of what you said is more often the case. A longer attack distance will allow a player to fail aggression without losing the game directly afterward. The more experienced and capable players become, the more they will be able to stay in the game with a disadvantage, so you might say long distances is a crutch in that regard, but I also think it's just the nature of SC2 to a certain extent. No question that longer distances make it harder to do timings. I think you have to weigh the options and the desired character of a map will help you decide. @caustic - will respond more in a bit Sorry EatThePath, but I can't help but disagree once again. First, we need to identify what is meant by "failed aggression". If we're just talking about a player who isn't able to find a good opportunity to deal damage, that is not going to result in losing the game immediately afterward so long as they're smart and do things such as expand behind their pressure. If we're talking about a player who ends up losing his entire army inefficiently, then that fault lay with the player. In Brood War, there was a famous player who always aggressively attacked and often failed spectacularly. His ID was IrOn; his nickname, "Suicide Toss". Today we know him as SK_MC. Making spectacular blunders in a game should open windows of opportunity to be punished. It's what I would consider one of the core issues in SC2 right now, that players can mess up pretty bad but still remain in the game because it's nearly impossible to put on pressure or successfully execute timing attacks on some of these larger maps. That said, I also agree that it's a matter of map character. In this case, I choose the character of Brood War (specifically, the clarity of action and consequence), as I personally find it much more entertaining to both play and watch. Ha! ^_^ Your contention about large maps allowing blunders may have some truth, but I think you can pin that fault more on the 3 base economy cap, but I'm not even sure that happens? Personally I have always been really disappointed by the utter helplessness of a player who makes a bad engagement. Have we been watching the same game for the last 2 years? To me that has been the dominating feature of most SC2 pro matches to this day, and I am willing to put up with whatever bandaid helps alleviate it. At this stage of player skill and metagame development, it might be time for smaller maps. I am inclined to think it'll just lead to one-fight games. However, I might end up agreeing with you eventually if this is all just a matter of taste and my perception of "fair" begins to tire me. I could say more but I defer.
I'm admittedly coming from a more Brood War-biased perspective on this, where the vast majority of games were determined by the quality of execution by players and generally ended on 2 to 3 bases. It's no coincidence that Blizzard designed SC2 around an economy cap of 3 bases. Only a minority of games ever saw 4+ bases, and they were usually known for being epic macro games. In SC2, that number of bases seems to be taken for granted, and as a direct result we've seen a heavy loss of the mid game on many maps (seriously, I've seen way too many games where a Zerg has a BL/Infestor army anywhere from 14 to 16 SC2 minutes -- that's 10 to 12 minutes in real time).
Anyway, not to digress too much, whenever I see a really bad, possibly game ending engagement, I only think to myself "Man, he really messed up. Better luck next time." What frustrates me is when I see players make these kinds of blunders, but there is no consequence for it because the attack distances on larger maps don't allow for punishment before the timing window closes. I've yet to enjoy a single game played on Whirlwind, to be honest. When playing on these kinds of large maps (not just Whirlwind), it usually comes down to one of three things:
1. Timing/all-in that fails because the rush distance is too large
2. Timing/all-in that succeeds only because the defender was caught with his pants down (blindly exploiting meta: timings are bad therefore play greedy)
3. Incredibly stale game involving only minor harassment and death ball attacks, many times a one-fight game (which you seem opposed to)
On January 19 2013 11:55 EatThePath wrote:[edit] If you want proof I'm not mortally opposed to you and your third base, just look at my submission to the latest map jam.
Ahaha, it's ok man, you don't need to provide proof of anything. Even if I did think you were mortally opposed (you've been very clear that you're moderate on the issue, btw), it's no big deal. Critical discussion and alternative opinion are what advances our understanding of a subject. In this particular case, I feel like the arguments brought up haven't substantially shaken the possible validity of this kind of mapmaking style. That unto itself is valuable information for me, and I wouldn't have it without this kind of feedback. As such, I'm probably going to continue researching and experimenting with this BW style a bit more, until such time I may come across something that makes me go, "Oh no, this simply won't work."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ivWXOf7l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wcerBNWl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xCH7El.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kWp6Dl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/4/4d/Bel%27Shir_Vestige.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w9qdol.jpgp)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/6/69/AbyssalCity.jpg/503px-AbyssalCity.jpg)
