|
Road Not Taken v.0.2
This map is intended for the MOTM ProAm (July) contest.
This map is a work in progress, whether or not it gets picked.
This post is a work in progress, and is being created for the sole benefit of FlashFTW. j/k <3 <3 <3 But seriously, the important stats and such will be edited in at a later time.
This map is published on NA.
Creation Details:
+ Show Spoiler +This is a four player rotationally symmetrical map. Yes, do a double take -- it is only 180 degree symmetrical. This map was "inspired" by all of the two player maps out there where in trying to get my bearings by locating the main base, inexplicably find myself looking at the far corner 5th/6th expansion, thinking "huh, well, HE'S gonna get blasted for having dual enterances to the main," just before realizing it's the 5th/6th expansion. The idea hit me to purposefully create a map where not only others would not have this fate befall upon them (because they'd be looking at the mains either way), but also not to have to force cross positions like some other 180 degree symmetrical 4-main maps, thus yielding a great variety of games that could be played on the map.
Map Pics:
+ Show Spoiler +
Map Specifications:
- Size -- 148x148 playable (168x176 full)
|
Seems like it could go somewhere. If I'm reading that right, then any combination of spawns is possible? Wouldn't the air distance be waaay too short (like scrap station short) if you got say, the top left spawn and the left of center spawn? I'm trying not to judge too quickly since this is in its early stages and I might not be understanding it correctly.
|
|
|
United States9935 Posts
i love you bro <3
wait, are you saying that all spawns are viable? that's seriously imbalanced.
|
I really like the basic idea of having spawning locations and spawn combinations that lead to very different types of games. I think Fatam's point about some of the spawn combinations having abusably short air distances is reasonable, though. Maybe you could shift the center bases toward their respective corners a bit so that they're a bit further from each other and from the corner mains?
As a Protoss, I also think there might be a potential PvZ balance issue. If Zerg spawns in a corner and I get two or three Colossi and mass Blink Stalkers into the space between the third and the main, I'm not sure what Z can actually do. I can abuse Blink and cliff-walking to my heart's content, which basically will force him to abandon the third. To make matters worse, if I spawn at the center position where my natural is right next to his third, then my army can attack his third while defending the only reasonable counter-attack path. I'd suggest adding a ramp from the natural into the 3 o'clock/9 o'clock expansions to give Zerg an alternative. You might also make the corner mains another level higher to prevent cliffwalking from the third.
Like I said, though, I really like the idea. I think this map could be really interesting to play on once it's tweaked so that all of the positional possibilities are playable. Balancing so many positional combinations could be a real challenge, but if you manage it it would be a seriously cool map.
|
@ Fatam -- Air distance is between the middle bases is scrap station short, but only for the two middle bases. The map analyzer says my middle bases are 60.9, whereas scrap station is 60.2. Desert oasis is 74.0 by air; Metalopolis SW positions are 58.6, and NE are 47.5! So is 60.9 too short? I don't know, maybe? I think it adds a nice element of variety. The other air distance are 81.9 for 5-7 & 11-1, 85.1 for 1-5 & 5-7, and 180.6 for 5-11. Even if there is one "too short" air distance, I think the rest are acceptable. I will post analyzer shots soon (hopefully!).
@ Probe1 -- Yup, that is definately one of the maps which were helped spark the idea for this map, but I didn't draw from it in any concious, meaningful way.
@ FlashFTW -- Yes, all spawns are viable. It may be imbalanced, and as with Deja vu Deja vu, I'm really interested to see the win% for all the different race/spawn combinations (assumes people play on it XD). I'm hoping it averages to be balanced through the imbalance, if that makes sense.
@ AmericanUmlaut -- I'll have to ponder those insights a bit, I appreciate taking the time to spell out your concerns.  Off the cuff, I would say the zerg would need to think about taking a long third vertically, or maybe to us a nydus to the other center base. It may not be the most ideal plan of attack for zerg in that situation, but part of the idea is to force some variety of gameplay depending on what you are up against as you mentioned. But let's say we wanted to make every position/race combo as 50/50 as possible -- what would you modify to make the situation you are detailing less powerful, or more "standard" as it is on other maps?
|
Its not good design to have a map balance by hoping all the coin flips average to 50-50. Even if the winrates turn out relatively equal across the matchups, which I doubt, noone wants to play on a map where the spawn positions have such a large effect on your chance to win.
Edit- I understand this is an overstatement of the problem but I hope you understand my problem with your balance philosophy. In reality the spawns could be slightly less imbalanced than they look, hard to tell.
|
@ Insomni7 -- I think it is better than having a complete map be forced into a categorization of "that's a ze/rra/toss map". On the other hand, I'm sure tweaks can be made to mitigate certain match ups from being too overpowered in most positions if the current iteration happens to be so egregiously offensive. You haven't mentioned which match ups you think might be imbalanced and why. Just saying "it will be imbalanced" doesn't make it so.
|
On July 14 2012 03:49 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:@ AmericanUmlaut -- I'll have to ponder those insights a bit, I appreciate taking the time to spell out your concerns. Off the cuff, I would say the zerg would need to think about taking a long third vertically, or maybe to us a nydus to the other center base. It may not be the most ideal plan of attack for zerg in that situation, but part of the idea is to force some variety of gameplay depending on what you are up against as you mentioned. But let's say we wanted to make every position/race combo as 50/50 as possible -- what would you modify to make the situation you are detailing less powerful, or more "standard" as it is on other maps?
That was exactly my point: There is no way for Zerg to take a third vertically, as there is no direct route from the natural to the 3/9 o'clock expansions. As I said, I would add a path so that that expansion would be viable.
As to your alternative suggestion, I think that requiring Nydus tech to safely take a third is asking a bit too much of your players. Maps should be different enough to require adjustments on a player's part to play optimally, they shouldn't require an entirely new metagame be mapped out for play to be viable.
As to your question of what I would modify, I already made suggestions in the comment you are responding to: Make the expos at 3 and 9 viable thirds, push the center expands further into their respective corners to prevent air play from being completely dominant, and adjust the layout of the current third so that it can be defended and/or change the map layout so that a player attacking it from the nearest center spawn location is not simultaneously defending the only viable counterattack path.
Oh, and I disagree strongly with this:
On July 14 2012 06:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
@ Insomni7 -- I think it is better than having a complete map be forced into a categorization of "that's a ze/rra/toss map". On the other hand, I'm sure tweaks can be made to mitigate certain match ups from being too overpowered in most positions if the current iteration happens to be so egregiously offensive. You haven't mentioned which match ups you think might be imbalanced and why. Just saying "it will be imbalanced" doesn't make it so.
"Balancing" a matchup by giving one race a ridiculous advantage in one position and a ridiculous disadvantage in another position doesn't result in a fun map. If you can get every spawn combination balanced somewhat, you'll have a very interesting map, but no one is going to play on a map where they know the outcome once they scout their opponent's spawn position.
|
@ AmericanUmlaut -- Why do you say that a third cannot be taken vertically? If the P army is at the third in front of the corner main, it is not cutting off the path to the 3/9 (if it *is* cutting off the path to the 3/9, then it is not abusing the cliff as you mention -- or if it is, the zerg has more problems then you let on, i.e., it is only on one base, or the natural is being invaded). In fact, if the protoss is out in front of the third he is in a very good position to get surrounded by the zerg as that portion of the map is very open after the natural choke. Is the 3/9 far? Yes. But I think it should be defensible since getting a raiding party all the way around the map the other way is much longer, and zerg can have overlords at quite a few points along the way to spot.
The main problem I have with making the 3/9 "viable" thirds is *where do you put the ramp*. I don't like the idea of a back door to the natural there, and adding a ramp near the resources/in the choke formed by the 4th in the middle (behind the center mains) just seems to weaken that base from being a pocket fourth for the center mains (since they are somewhat far) when facing the other corner, or even the opposing center base. If there were a ramp there, it seems somewhat trivial in the example you give anyway, since the zerg would need to still be able to get out of the natural to get to that ramp, in which case it might as well just go the distance.
How would you make the current third "defensible" for a zerg even if the center base was pushed further to the corner? Is it simply the act of making that base more open that makes it defensible for zerg? If so it seems to me like that section has a fairly open area before the choke to the central natural. Opening it up more I guess would help if more open means more defensible for zerg, but then does it become too open for a protoss or terran in that position?
I'm not asking these questions rhetorically, I'm just trying to figure out why the situation you posit is going to cause such a problem. Wouldn't Zerg most likely already have a third in the situation you propose anyway?
Finally, I disagree with your disagreement. I don't think any race/position has a "rediculous" advantage on this map (even without any refinement), nor am I attempting to give any in particular. However, I realize that advantages will exist for some race/location combinations, and I do look forward to the outcome of those results as I feel they will be telling. No player knows exactly the outcome or the play leading up to that outcome even on maps where positions are complelely symmetrical and balanced, so this part of your argument is a straw man. And the more I have thought about it the more I disagree that having different ways a map could *tend* to play out is a bad thing. Having a whole map be vetoed because it doesn't suit your race is a much worse design.
Does have more variety in the map making it harder to prepare for? Of course. But in doing so it also exemplifies more greatly the brilliance of the player pulling out a tough win in a disadvantageous race/position. This is the kind of thing I think would be quite exciting from a spectator point of view, and personally, the kind of thing I would like to play on.
In other threads, people have mentioned they like the idea of maps that play out differently based on different spawning locations (mostly, dual 2-player maps, i.e. 180 degree symmetry with forced cross spawns), and even you echo those sentiments here -- why do you then go and create a straw man argument against something that is almost gauranteed on a map concept such as this, that is, race/position advantage differences? That's practically the definition of "the map playing out differently in different positions".
|
Updated with version 0.2 pictures.
EDIT: quick note about the back doors to the nats -- there is a neutral baneling egg, and a destructible rock on each side of the backdoor path, and a single-harvest gold minerals on the far side of the backdoor path (so egg x2, rock x2, mineral x1@7min). Destroying the egg allows small units through but requires mining out the minerals (the eggs can be mine-walked through), destroying the rocks allows all ground units through. Why: I didn't want the backdoor to be too easy to get through, but I wanted the path to be scoutable to reduce some of the distance between bases. Without the minerals in the way, units will glitch like a forcefield is there (currently, this can be strategically abused!). Baneling eggs were used instead of something else so that workers and initial army units could clear a small path if desired before the required firepower is available to take down the rocks; they were also used because they can be mineral-walked which allows for certain tactics like running drones away if a quick third is under siege. This arrangement is hard to tell from the images but the analyzer shows it decently (anaylzer pics were taken before the 1.5.0 patch).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lWl9c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/67PaG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wZg2Q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yeRIb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SdTnq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ONwz3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OR4Z6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RQMAW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xMFVa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MjwkB.jpg)
