Okay, so I had a discussion with someone about the Red Bull TLMC results, he or she asked me if what maps I'd like to see as finalist. I argued pathfinder., the reason it didn't make it was apparently the power of blink stalkers.
At this point I must admit confusion. TLMC's set goals where to 'shake up the metagame', how on earth are you going to alter the metagame by not making certain strategies more powerful? Does anyone actually think that blink stalkers would become so powerful that they'd become 'unstoppable'? If they'd be unstoppable then people would've gone nothing but blink stalkers in the old day of metalopolis or lost temple. No, they will become more powerful and the other races will be forced to adapt and open up in ways specifically designed to deal with blink stalkers. Get some marauders early, get earlier lingspeed. The reason we use the current openers is because they can deal with everything thrown at us currently, the very definition of 'shaking up the metagame' is creating situations where the current openers are no longer viable.
Back in the HotS beta when reapers were absolutely ridiculous. It was standard in ZvT to open 14gas/14pool for a while to deal with it. No, you couldn't deal with it from a hatch first, so then don't go hatch first any more? The metagame was indeed shaken up quite a bit. But it rippled further, because Z had early speed, the potential of a quick baneling all in loomed, suddenly Terran had to make consenssions deal with that threat so you'd suddenly see scans from paranoid terrans to see if you actually had a natural, extra bunkers went down. They couldn't see any more if a natural went down because early speedlings denied it or it could be cancelled. It sort of balanced each other out again.
Was the balancing out perfect? No, I'd say that such a situation favours T slightly more than Z. Does it matter when we already have maps which go 55 or even 58% in certain matchups in the pool? No, not at all, finals are played over bo7's, 55% is completely acceptable as long as the next map swings in a different direction.
Consider cross-only Antiga Shipyard, if we look at winrates, it is one of the most balanced maps ever. People said 'Z can't get a fourth easy vs T' on that map, and that's true. So, Zerg dealt with it, they invented 2-2 muta/ling/bane timing attacks to deal substantial damage before that point so they didn't need a fourth or conversely could secure it because Terran was battered. This strategy was an ingenious solution because the layout of the main/natural/third allowed for this very well, the strategy was quite powerful. It would kill Terrans if they played normally, so Terrans addapted in anticipation of this timing and got overtly defensive, in return the overly defensive stance allowed Z to secure a fourth. Now, this balancing action only worked insofar that the main/nat/third setup made this attack so powerful. This wasn't a design of the map specifically towards this, but this was no accident either. I am fully confident that if the map did not allow this specific timing to work so well, Zergs would have found another timing that did work. We're talking about the strategic genius of Korean teamhouses here. If a map is made in such a way that if you play like you normally do you won't make it, they will find a way to throw a wrench into it.
Icarus, one of the last great attempts to shake up the metagame has very few games on it, but against all expectations for how little games on it it has it's actualyl Zerg favoured in ZvT contrary to expectations, if you'd play standard on Icarus in ZvT you'd die, but they addapted, they did not play standard, they discovered how potent roach-based backstabbing play was on that map and they made it work. It's too bad the map went out of circulation before we could see if Terrans maybe could formulate a counter-response to this play. People based their expectations of the map on the reasoning 'Gee, what would happen if Z would play like they normally would on this map against Terran?' and concluded that Z would have a tough time. Well, Z didn't play like they normally would, they adapted to the map and invented a wholly new playstyle. Korean teamhouses can and will adapt.
People should in my opinion also really stop trying to balance a map for all 6 matchups and just use a better veto system in tournaments. If you make a map balanced for all 6 matchups it will be dull in all 6 matchups. I really don't get the 'map pool of 7 with no vetoes' system. Rather, make it a map pool of 11 and give everyone 3 vetos in a Bo5. There might be a map in there which is imbalanced in ZvP but makes excellent TvZ and TvP games. Every protoss will just veto it versus Zerg but it'll keep being used in the other matchups. Small map pools are a disaster in my opinion. If one of them is imbalanced that colours the entire tournament. In BW the OSL would have a map pool of 4 typically. Sometimes one of those was brutally imbalanced, then you're in tough luck. Map pools should rather be larger and players should be allowed more vetos.
Finally, I'm constantly talking about 'standard' and 'deviating from the standard', but I'm not looking for a couple of maps in a map pool being different adn the rest 'standard'. I'm looking for there to no longer be a standard. Every map could have a different natural design for all I care. Let's for sake of argument consider GSL 5's map pool:
Every single one of these maps was different, and yes, some were pretty imbalanced but you can veto them in matches that they are? Crossfire was a nightmare in PvZ but delivered quite nice ZvT's so why not just veto it there. Different strategies were used on all these maps which is a good thnig in my opinion.
People often talk about BW and how 'each unit felt more powerful', and boy it did. There was only one drawback to this idea, it felt more powerful through the entire game, every map. Which meant you were using the same units every time because they were so powerful compared to the other units. You can achieve this same idea with maps, except then it's more varied. So what if blink stalkers feel so ungodly powerful on Pathfinder. There are maps where they don't.
If a map is good for Protoss, it will attract more negative attention. People are put off by watching Protoss win tournaments, it just doesn't seem to sit well with the community for some reason.
I agree with you on maps, I think there should be maps where one thing is powerful, but expected, and other maps where it's less powerful, but less expected. I really think normally this is allowed in tournaments unless it's a Protoss strategy, and even then it's sometimes left in.
You pretty much dictated my thoughts on the map making community as a whole. I don't make maps, I just play the game, but I frequent the map making forum because I look forward to seeing what people make. What I don't look forward to is the comments. They're usually fucking retched. I was completely baffled at the amount of putrid shit everyone on that forum was giving Alterzim when it was announced. Jesus fucking christ, people just spout of "This is what will happen", "X is overpowered", "Y will never win". It's infuriating! You know what I did when the map was announced? I got exciting. Fuck yes, an enormous map. I proceeded to go play customs on that map, and it was different than the other maps in the map pool. I played a ZvT on that map, and I absolutely steam rolled a standard parade push. Why? Because it was a quarter fucking mile from his main to my third, and he couldn't reinforce in the same way he could on say, Gwangalli Beach.
I look at the map makers forum, and what I see are new map makers trying to innovate, old map makers shitting on them, and then new map makers adopting the idea that everything has to be standardized. I'm of the opinion that no map is balanced, or unbalanced. The core races are the same way. They aren't balanced around fucking anything. Blizzard gave us tools, and how we use those tools determine if we win or not. If it's a ZvP on pathfinder, and blinking into the main is powerful, than so fucking be it. Zerg has a fucking plethora of options to deal with that sort of play, that's the entire point of a god damn RTS.
That also goes for just about every balance patch Blizzard has ever released. Stop trying to fucking make the game balanced, we have the tools to make it balanced, patching just prevents people from innovating, and causes the metagame to dry out.
Imbalanced or weird maps were better for Proleague in the BW days since progamers would spend a week or more practicing a single matchup on a single map and could dedicate a lot of time and focus to figuring out good strategies for it. This is one reason I liked the SC2 Proleague maps like arkanoid and Caldeum. But most maps nowadays are either ladder maps, by which any imbalances can be ignored just by vetoing it, or obscure maps used in random tournaments, like this one, which considering how little one tournament means, players generally don't focus on preparing strategies for them (though for Red Bull they might).
Also BW wasn't perfect, occasionally maps would be so skewed for certain races they became a mirror map for a while then phased out. Battle Royale comes to mind.
@ littlesheep. Protoss gets a lot of hate because they have a large number of aggressive builds that are all really difficult to hold and Terran/zerg scouting tools are not good enough to reliably detect exactly what's going during such games unless the Protoss is incompetant or the T/Z gets lucky somehow. So you end up having to make really crazy judgement calls with no information and doing as such often feels like guessing. And random chance is the enemy of the purity of skill, so FUCK PROTOSS RAWRAGH.)
I very much agree. The strife for perfect balance has hindered the development strategic variety by removing obstacles that would otherwise require a new approach. So, as a viewer, I really wish the map pool was more diverse. And I miss Xelnaga Caverns.
I couldn't disagree more. It's not like the shape of a football field changes every 3 months, besides I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy, especially when I know for sure which all-in I'm going to see before the game even starts...
I agree with your point about imbalances, but those imbalances needs to be equalized. Say you have a map that is strong for blinkstalkers.. Then it should make up for it, by not having chokes protoss can abuse, and also have easy drop spots
The way you describe to implement imbalances, is just giving one race supremacy on certain map, which is fcked up and boring to watch and play. ------------------------
Also, some of your examples are wrong
1: "Back in the HotS beta when reapers were absolutely ridiculous. It was standard in ZvT to open 14gas/14pool for a while to deal with it. No, you couldn't deal with it from a hatch first, so then don't go hatch first any more?" This one is used wrong. You forgot to ad the fact, that terran dominated TvZ at that point, and where blatantly superior. Forcing zerg economically behind vs a terran, when zergs strenght is mass numbers, will always result in terran winning
2: "So, Zerg dealt with it, they invented 2-2 muta/ling/bane timing attacks to deal substantial damage before that point so they didn't need a fourth or conversely could secure it because Terran was battered. This strategy was an ingenious solution because the layout of the main/natural/third allowed for this very well, the strategy was quite powerful."
BULLSHIT! DRG popularized the 2-2 ling bling muta all in back in WoL on Cloud Kingdom, which was meant to deal with bombers 2-2-1 push in the middle of the map(right above zergs 4rth)
3 "Korean teamhouses can and will adapt."
[bAgain, bullshit. All prohouses will adapt to an extend, but the ladder is where they get the rough drafts for new strategies The reason for this, is that unlike progamers, normal players who are a gm level, have no obligations toward the game, and therefor have alot more room for datamining builds. [/b]
On November 04 2013 23:22 Zax19 wrote: I couldn't disagree more. It's not like the shape of a football field changes every 3 months, besides I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy, especially when I know for sure which all-in I'm going to see before the game even starts...
Football isn't a strategy game, it's a physical game.
and before you jump to chess, the same criticism is in fact very much alive in chess. Chess is currently dying, it is entering a process right now that was feared for the last 200 years, the final stage of chess called 'draw death', where the game is so figured out that the majority of professional chess matches ends in a draw. A recent world championship of chess in fact where 10 draws and 2 games being a victory. Arguably the most talented chess player of the modern time argued before his death that chess piece starting positions should in fact be randomized, and he's not alone in this.
"I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy"
Before the mothership core, map design forced you to FFE vs Z, any amount of pressure expand was useless because it could be fend of with a single spine. You would before that time see super interesting 3stalker pressure builds vs Zerg on maps with open naturals but those were a thing of the past at the end of WoL. Every TvP was 1 rax FE because the map forced it.
Make no mistake that the current 'standard openers' are forced by the maps just as hard.
Agreed. Both perfect balance on maps and perfect balance throughout ladders is a destructive goal.
In BW a lot of weird maps where used and well, weird maps produce weird strategies.. and that's the beauty of it. I generally hate watching TvZ and lately even TvP because the strategies are so monotone... this would help tremendously. We cannot expect miracles from LoV, it's time to make diversity through maps.
I don't really get you. You complain about all the unique maps in TLMC just badmouthing them constantly and then you bring up Antiga and Icarus and say how much they changed the meta game. I honestly shouldn't reply here because you have a history of arguing just to argue and will usually pull up random facts to try to prove yourself correct but hey, why not.
First off, you bring up Antiga and say look at the win rates and then say it's unique and interesting because the 4th is "risky". As someone else already pointed out, they didn't invented 2-2 MLB because of this map, it was just a style of play that was already figured out that works well on 3 base. You praise zerg win rates saying that even though they bitched about the map they still had a higher win %. Do you realize this was also the end of WoL? Do you realize this was also when, if a zerg could get Brood Lord Infestor they could for the most part win the majority of the time? The term "patch zerg", you should be familiar with. Well it's also about the same time that Antiga went Cross only? Do you honestly believe if Infestor/Brood lord wasn't so strong that zerg would have still done well on that map?
But let's not be done with Antiga just yet, since you seem to have a hard on for that map. Let's look at the current TLMC winners. There are no maps that are even somewhat similar to each other (closest would probably be Blitz & Hab Station) yet even though some of them have backdoors, safer/harder nats, safer/harder 3rds, safer/harder 4ths, you're first thought instead of let's see how these play out, you complain about them instantly saying they don't change the meta game at all. So how come, all of a sudden, you're praising Antiga Shipyard for having a Unique 3 base layout with a difficult 4th, yet given time, turned out to be a good map according to you.
I'll go more in depth on Hab station since it's my own map. You have an option of 3rds, one more in the open, one a gold. It's not your basic easy main/nat/third setup. Well now what, do you take a quick 3rd and move your units out to the ramps toward the middle so you can possibly defend it better through those chokes? Do you take the gold, which has a double wide ramp yet it very vulnerable to air harass? Do you sit on 2 base longer and get a bigger army? Do you all-in because the 3rd is too difficult? Maybe the meta will change because there is so much more to think on this map. Instead, we get you bitching about all the results, saying none of them change up the meta.
Next up you talk about Icarus and say how much it changed up the meta. Gee, a map with a double wide ramp into your main, a back door ramp, a giant 12 block wide rock blocking that back door. No possible way to get a 3rd as protoss or terran. AND you're saying zerg should be the one having troubles? You're joking right? You say zergs suddenly started doing roach play? I guess you forgot about 7RR that was already quite popular. Or I guess you forgot how strong Stephano made roaches look during his Roach Max.
To me, it's crazy that you make a blog post saying how Antiga turned out awesome because after thousands of games it turned out balanced even though people bitch when it first came out. You also say you wish Icarus got more play because zergs went roaches early game and that was meta changing bro! Yet, you immediately bitch and complain about all the maps that are in TLMC because they won't "change up the meta" How do you know they won't? We have mirrored maps that we never see in competitive play (Klontas was the most recent then....scrap station?), we have maps with inbase naturals but has backdoors. We have maps with lava taking out the center. We have maps that make it impossible to scout early game. We have maps with crazy middle bases. So please, please tell me how you can know that these maps all suck and won't change the meta at all.
Yeah if every match was a boX with veto's then it wouldn't matter to have some trashy maps, but if players' livelihood depends for a very large part whether or not they get a favorable draw it's obviously fucking stupid.
On November 04 2013 23:22 Zax19 wrote: I couldn't disagree more. It's not like the shape of a football field changes every 3 months, besides I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy, especially when I know for sure which all-in I'm going to see before the game even starts...
Football isn't a strategy game, it's a physical game.
and before you jump to chess, the same criticism is in fact very much alive in chess. Chess is currently dying, it is entering a process right now that was feared for the last 200 years, the final stage of chess called 'draw death', where the game is so figured out that the majority of professional chess matches ends in a draw. A recent world championship of chess in fact where 10 draws and 2 games being a victory. Arguably the most talented chess player of the modern time argued before his death that chess piece starting positions should in fact be randomized, and he's not alone in this.
"I hate when map layout forces you to do a certain strategy"
Before the mothership core, map design forced you to FFE vs Z, any amount of pressure expand was useless because it could be fend of with a single spine. You would before that time see super interesting 3stalker pressure builds vs Zerg on maps with open naturals but those were a thing of the past at the end of WoL. Every TvP was 1 rax FE because the map forced it.
Make no mistake that the current 'standard openers' are forced by the maps just as hard.
As I said, I couldn't disagree more. I've read your posts in the mapmaking forum section a long time ago and your ideas are something I never really agreed with. I didn't come here to argue but I saw this on reddit so I'm just sharing my point of view.
On November 05 2013 01:26 SidianTheBard wrote: I don't really get you. You complain about all the unique maps in TLMC just badmouthing them constantly and then you bring up Antiga and Icarus and say how much they changed the meta game. I honestly shouldn't reply here because you have a history of arguing just to argue and will usually pull up random facts to try to prove yourself correct but hey, why not.
First off, you bring up Antiga and say look at the win rates and then say it's unique and interesting because the 4th is "risky". As someone else already pointed out, they didn't invented 2-2 MLB because of this map, it was just a style of play that was already figured out that works well on 3 base. You praise zerg win rates saying that even though they bitched about the map they still had a higher win %. Do you realize this was also the end of WoL? Do you realize this was also when, if a zerg could get Brood Lord Infestor they could for the most part win the majority of the time? The term "patch zerg", you should be familiar with. Well it's also about the same time that Antiga went Cross only? Do you honestly believe if Infestor/Brood lord wasn't so strong that zerg would have still done well on that map?
Where have I ever said Antiga was unique? It's a fairly standard map. I'm using it as an example of how races are capable of adapting to something which prima facie seems imbalanced because people test balance relative to the current metagame rather than as something that can alter the metagame. I never called Antiga unique and I never will. I did call Icarus unique.
Antiga was also in the map pool long before the end of WoL. Antiga debuted when July was still in the GSL I recall.
But let's not be done with Antiga just yet, since you seem to have a hard on for that map.
I do, I consider it one of the best maps ever in terms of sheer excitement of gameplay.
Let's look at the current TLMC winners. There are no maps that are even somewhat similar to each other (closest would probably be Blitz & Hab Station) yet even though some of them have backdoors, safer/harder nats, safer/harder 3rds, safer/harder 4ths, you're first thought instead of let's see how these play out, you complain about them instantly saying they don't change the meta game at all. So how come, all of a sudden, you're praising Antiga Shipyard for having a Unique 3 base layout with a difficult 4th, yet given time, turned out to be a good map according to you.
I have never called Antiga unique. I have said this about Antiga:
- I think it's a good map - It's an example of how imbalance can be overcome by altering playstyle
I have never called Antiga unique, it's a fairly standard and straightforward map concept that just works well for me.
I'll go more in depth on Hab station since it's my own map. You have an option of 3rds, one more in the open, one a gold. It's not your basic easy main/nat/third setup.
You have a natural and a main with 8m2g each, a single ramp to the natural and a single choke leading to the outside of the natural which is 2-4 forcefields wide like every other map. It's been done before a thousand times and it's getting boring.
Icarus is unique because it challenges this standard. The natural has a different resource layout, there is a 2 width ramp into the main, the natural is inbase and has rocks leading to it. That's already a significant alteration.
No possible way to get a 3rd as protoss or terran.
You talk indefinite bullshit here, I remember many games where P or T got a third on Icarus. What you say here is flat out not true and discredits you as a mapper.
AND you're saying zerg should be the one having troubles?
Yes, that is what people originally said when the map came out.
You're joking right? You say zergs suddenly started doing roach play? I guess you forgot about 7RR that was already quite popular.
7RR was extinct during Icarus. Even on Icarus.
Or I guess you forgot how strong Stephano made roaches look during his Roach Max.
That is a ZvP strat, nota ZvT strat, roaches have always been mainstay in ZvP but have always been a rarity in ZvT as a midgame composition outside some roach/bane all ins. I'm talking ZvT.
To me, it's crazy that you make a blog post saying how Antiga turned out awesome because after thousands of games it turned out balanced even though people bitch when it first came out. You also say you wish Icarus got more play because zergs went roaches early game and that was meta changing bro! Yet, you immediately bitch and complain about all the maps that are in TLMC because they won't "change up the meta" How do you know they won't? We have mirrored maps that we never see in competitive play (Klontas was the most recent then....scrap station?), we have maps with inbase naturals but has backdoors. We have maps with lava taking out the center. We have maps that make it impossible to scout early game. We have maps with crazy middle bases. So please, please tell me how you can know that these maps all suck and won't change the meta at all.
Like I said before, the Lava map was a true innovation. Apart from that I am not impressed with the originality of the maps in the TLMC finalists and I am not alone. The entire thread on reddit was filled with dissapointment down to outright ire that every map again was the same. Every standard strategy which you can do now, from FFE, to 1 rax FE, to reaper expand, to hatch first will work on any of those maps. Because they are designed to still allow them to work. No mapmaker had the balls to say 'No, you cannot go hach first in ZvT on this map, find something else to do. And that is what I like to see, just that one map in the pool which has such a ridiculously abusive bunker spot to spot purely to stop zergs from going hatch first and to see how they deal with it.
Ending the map requirement of balance for all 6 matchups is essential but the slight change I would make on the veto system is note certain maps as No Protoss/Terran/Zerg and they are automatically out for those matchups so no need to veto.
On November 05 2013 02:08 dvorakftw wrote: Ending the map requirement of balance for all 6 matchups is essential but the slight change I would make on the veto system is note certain maps as No Protoss/Terran/Zerg and they are automatically out for those matchups so no need to veto.
Well, the cool part would be if a Protoss suddenly makes an audacious move and picks a map that is vetoed by every protoss in say PvT because he knows his opponent did not practice that map most likely and he has prepared a specific strat to overcome that map. It adds a lot of cool mind games.
I'll just ignore the first half of your reply since it's typical Siskos arguing where you find 1 "Unique" thing in my whole post and keep drilling into it.
On November 05 2013 02:02 SiskosGoatee wrote: You talk indefinite bullshit here, I remember many games where P or T got a third on Icarus. What you say here is flat out not true and discredits you as a mapper.
While I remember many games where P or T couldn't secure a third on Icarus. Look, I'm using your form of arguing! I win.
That is a ZvP strat, nota ZvT strat, roaches have always been mainstay in ZvP but have always been a rarity in ZvT as a midgame composition outside some roach/bane all ins. I'm talking ZvT.
Zergs were getting early roaches to stop hellion play waaaay before Icarus came out. Even if they didn't get roaches out they would always get a roach warren for the possibility.
Like I said before, the Lava map was a true innovation. Apart from that I am not impressed with the originality of the maps in the TLMC finalists and I am not alone. The entire thread on reddit was filled with dissapointment down to outright ire that every map again was the same. Every standard strategy which you can do now, from FFE, to 1 rax FE, to reaper expand, to hatch first will work on any of those maps. Because they are designed to still allow them to work. No mapmaker had the balls to say 'No, you cannot go hach first in ZvT on this map, find something else to do. And that is what I like to see, just that one map in the pool which has such a ridiculously abusive bunker spot to spot purely to stop zergs from going hatch first and to see how they deal with it.
Because if zerg cannot go hatch first they lose? I don't care what you say, a zerg on 1 base will lose the majority of the time to a protoss or terran on 1 base. Zerglings, Banelings & Roaches one 1 base will never beat Marines or stalker/sentry on 1 base. The only way a zerg wins on 1 base is if the terran or protoss gets too greedy and does nexus/cc first and skips on units. But if you're playing on a map where you can shut down the natural easily, then do that, get units and gg zerg won't win. That's just race design. It's the same reason why any map with a somewhat hard to hold 3rd, you see Protoss 2 base all-in. Hell, even with maps that have easy to hold 3rds you still see protoss 2 base all-in? Why? Because it's one of their strongest points in the game.
On November 05 2013 02:34 SidianTheBard wrote: I'll just ignore the first half of your reply since it's typical Siskos arguing where you find 1 "Unique" thing in my whole post and keep drilling into it.
I just quote everything you say and reply ot everything.
You talk indefinite bullshit here, I remember many games where P or T got a third on Icarus. What you say here is flat out not true and discredits you as a mapper.
While I remember many games where P or T couldn't secure a third on Icarus. Look, I'm using your form of arguing! I win.
...wtf?
You say it is 'impossible' to secure a third, do you think that many games where P or T can't secure a third proves that?
If I say it is 'impossible' that a human being grows beyond 2 metres tall, do I prove my thesis by 'Yeah, you may show me many human beings that are taller than 2 metres, but I also know many that aren't!'
Do you know the meaning of the word 'impossible'? Theoretically one need only present a single counter example to dispute a claim of impossibility. Now, I can obviously read between the lines and understand you mean 'nigh on impossible', but it's not even that. You saw thirds being secured about 2/5 of the games played on the map by T/P. That doesn't come in the vicinity of 'impossible'.
Zergs were getting early roaches to stop hellion play waaaay before Icarus came out. Even if they didn't get roaches out they would always get a roach warren for the possibility
, yes, they would, and that's entirely different from what happened on Icarus where they used roaches as essentiallyt heir entire midgame army. Maxing on almost pure roach against bio.
Because if zerg cannot go hatch first they lose?
Nullshit, if this is what you base your maps on then you seriously need to re-evaluate your theory., It has long been shown that 15pool is the most economic opener Z can do. The only advantage Hatch first offers above 15 pool is earlier creep. 15 pool gives you more drones and more larvae. It is patent and absolute bullshit that Z needs hatch first vs T to win at all.
You'd also be surprised at how close 10pool comes to hatch first in terms of income. I actually saturate 2 bases on 16 drones per mineral line and 3 in gas with 10pool only 10 seconds later than with hatch first, I once tested it.
But hey, it's long known that this entire game's theory is based on myths which have long been disproven. Hell, Korean Zergs even still do the extractor trick some times even though it's proven that 9 overlord is superior in every single way.
I don't care what you say, a zerg on 1 base will lose the majority of the time to a protoss or terran on 1 base.
Because the only way to get a second base is with a hatch first?
Like I said in the op, in the beta the standard meta in ZvT for a while was in fact 14g14p, and you could win just fine. This was when reapers were still so ridiculous that every TvT was reaper and I don't think you could beat 8 rax proxy reaper in TvT without your own reapers or blind marauders but 14g14p definitely held up to Terran in that time at the beta.
Speaking for map imbalances that I specifically look for in maps (and probably other judges as well) it's pretty much only Blink Stalkers and cannon rushes. Cannon rushes are obvious, don't place minerals in dumb locations and this isn't even up for debate. For blink stalkers, the only reason this is the one strategy that we particularly pay attention to is because it's been proven time and time again that Blink Stalkers are exceptionally potent anytime the main is exposed to blink.
Normally we're pretty forgiving with this. If there is only some area from which blink stalkers can come in we can normally deal with that (because bunkers/defence can be prepared in that location - example: see Electric Circuit from TLMC2) but if there are two distinct places where blink stalkers can attack that isn't difficult for them to get to, then we have a problem. Your example of path finder has exactly this problem (the whole main is virtually vulnerable to blink). That doesn't make for particularly good games and arguably does more harm to the legitimacy of foreign mapping in the long term than any positive developments to the metagame.
Aside from blink stalkers we're generally pretty accepting of players finding a way to counter strategies -- particularly with HotS which didn't see as radical of a map pool as WoL did. Low ground mains is probably the only iffy area due to PvP, but a well executed low ground main map would still have us intrigued. Things like rising lava, FF blocks, extreme contrast between chokes and wide spaces, variations in mineral/gas count, use of gold minerals, small main/large nat, reverse islands, semi islands, full islands, unconventional naturals (think scrap station), short air distances, mineral back doors, rocked back doors, reverse bases (think Outsider/Koprulu), extra thin main ramps etc. are all interesting features which I'd be enthusiastic to see on a map. Hell, I'd encourage mappers to look into these ideas and hammer out some concepts and send them to me or someone for feedback -- I'm always happy to do that. These ideas invariably score better than similar quality standard maps as they catch our eye as they are memorable.
fantastic write up. You put my thoughts on "paper" and it was very well done. I feel like you covered most of the arguments and I completely agree with your ideas. Great work!
On November 05 2013 02:49 Plexa wrote: Speaking for map imbalances that I specifically look for in maps (and probably other judges as well) it's pretty much only Blink Stalkers and cannon rushes. Cannon rushes are obvious, don't place minerals in dumb locations and this isn't even up for debate. For blink stalkers, the only reason this is the one strategy that we particularly pay attention to is because it's been proven time and time again that Blink Stalkers are exceptionally potent anytime the main is exposed to blink.
I don't think cannon rushes are a problem, people could deal with it on metalopolis and this was when pylons still powered the high ground. Are you telling me that if they could deal with it on metalopolis where a cannon on the lowground can reach the high ground workers they can't deal with this stuff now that you actually need to make a pylon on the high ground before you can start a cannon there?
About blink all ins, yeah, they are potent, good, that means people have to do different openers. I never die to blink all ins ever almost because almost every map that's good for blink all ins is also good for this sweet 2rax reaper+marauder pressure I love doing where you get 2 reapers and marine-marauder, pressure the back with the reapers and the front with the marauders and force protoss to choose a place for photon overcharge. It absolutely crushes any blink all in because:
- It kills a standard blind blink all in that doesn't adapt to it because blink all ins sort of rely on T being passive until the gateways are done, it hits when the council is just about done and you have 2 gate and the pain train is on then, - You got marauders, early conc and early stim of course.
This is just one thing you can do. I'm pretty sure that if my tournament line was on the line I would be churning out 7 more builds which absolutely crush blink all ins and take full advantage of the layout of blink all ins. Maybe some 1base tank drop strategy with a tank providing cover on the low ground, good luck blink all inning me when I'm getting tanks on one base bro.
Normally we're pretty forgiving with this. If there is only some area from which blink stalkers can come in we can normally deal with that (because bunkers/defence can be prepared in that location - example: see Electric Circuit from TLMC2) but if there are two distinct places where blink stalkers can attack that isn't difficult for them to get to, then we have a problem. Your example of path finder has exactly this problem (the whole main is virtually vulnerable to blink). That doesn't make for particularly good games and arguably does more harm to the legitimacy of foreign mapping in the long term than any positive developments to the metagame.
Bunkers? I don't use bunkers to defend blink all ins, I use marauder, see the above.
Again, balance is being tested against the current metagame, the metagame will change if blink all ins become so powerful that it forces a change in the metagame to defend it. I have zero troubles with blink all ins when I do this reaper 2 rax strategy. It scouts it and when it finally hits I have marauders and medivacs out already.
I have a big criticism to make about TLMC3. Every map still feels overly safe apart from New Polaris Rhapsody (which even then is only unique because it re-uses a mechanic from the WoL campaign) and Shrieking Breeze (because the natural is no longer as safe as in most other maps.) The rest still look like the kind of maps that would have been finalists in TLMC or TLMC2.
Also, not gonna hate on Red Bull for this but why will only one of these maps be in the map pool? I feel like this is an ever-so-slight cop-out as at least six maps in the RBBG map pool will likely be the same old ones we see in WCS.
I feel like map design is something that has to change about SC2 in order to make it more interesting for the viewers. Remember in early SC2 when we had maps that would be considered anathema today like Xel'Naga Caverns, Steppes of War, Incinceration Zone, Crossfire, Desert Oasis, Metalopolis, Jungle Basin and Blistering Sands? If they truly were so imbalanced, then how come we saw champions and top tier players representing all three races?
Now remember when every map was macro oriented, huge and massively favored for the Zerg race (on top of various questionable balance changes David Kim decided to/decided not to make) with Infestor Brood Lord Corruptor being the composition that every pro-gamer, even Korean, said was overpowered and unbeatable?
Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Also, you neglected to explain how cannon rushes can possibly be broken if they could be fended of on metal without pylons powering up the high ground.
On November 05 2013 03:07 SiskosGoatee wrote: Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all: make sure that blink stalkers can't easily attack two separate places in a main and we're likely to overlook the power of blink stalkers. I don't think that's too much to ask nor will that stifle creativity?
Also, you neglected to explain how cannon rushes can possibly be broken if they could be fended of on metal without pylons powering up the high ground.
This isn't even debatable. You don't make mineral fields which allow cannon rushes with 1 pylon blocks, even 2 pylon blocks shouldn't happen. Why are you even arguing this rofl.
On November 05 2013 03:07 Clbull wrote: I have a big criticism to make about TLMC3. Every map still feels overly safe apart from New Polaris Rhapsody (which even then is only unique because it re-uses a mechanic from the WoL campaign) and Shrieking Breeze (because the natural is no longer as safe as in most other maps.) The rest still look like the kind of maps that would have been finalists in TLMC or TLMC2.
Also, not gonna hate on Red Bull for this but why will only one of these maps be in the map pool? I feel like this is an ever-so-slight cop-out as at least six maps in the RBBG map pool will likely be the same old ones we see in WCS.
Honestly, that's more to do with the submissions than the judging. I don't blame mappers for submitting standard-ish maps since they tend to perform well in public votes but I hope that they have the confidence to submitted more non-standard maps in subsequent contests.
On November 05 2013 03:07 SiskosGoatee wrote: Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Yes, you are just theorycrafting. Then the Protoss scouts your 1-1-1 setup and just expands and what then? Your 1-1-1 setup is shit for the following macrogame and you have to start and build up production for your bio and take an expansion, while the Protoss already has most of his standard production. Also, say you open up this way - and you have to do so blindly, you need to throw down the factory before you can confirm any sort of twilight tech - meanwhile the Protoss just opens normal or with a build that destroys such a setup like a stargate allin (another very powerful build on this map) due to the lack of reactored barracks.
All hail to diversifying stuff, but there is no way that we should buff powerful 1-2 base allins even further. There is so much unseen creativity that can be used for mapbuilding, but making mainbases very exposed is not one of them.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
This isn't even debatable
That's called a dogma.
Why are you even arguing this rofl.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
On November 05 2013 03:07 SiskosGoatee wrote: Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Yes, you are just theorycrafting. Then the Protoss scouts your 1-1-1 setup and just expands and what then? Your 1-1-1 setup is shit for the following macrogame and you have to start and build up production for your bio and take an expansion, while the Protoss already has most of his standard production.
Or it kills a protoss as a 1-1-1 all in has the potential of doing. Especially a protoss who takes a late nexus. A 1-1-1 all in is one of the most deadliest all ins in the history of the game which is only saved by photon overcharge, but guess what, on pathfinder you can siege the main out of reach of that. You can even do a 1-1-1 semi all in if you want and expand behind it while you damage the protoss main.
Also, say you open up this way - and you have to do so blindly, you need to throw down the factory before you can confirm any sort of twilight tech - meanwhile the Protoss just opens normal or with a build that destroys such a setup like a stargate allin (another very powerful build on this map) due to the lack of reactored barracks.
Stargate all ins are very bad vs quick factories in HotS if you see them coming. As it turns out mines > marines when it comes to dealing with oracles.
That aside, there is always some build order poker. I'm just saying there are many ways to deal with a blink stalker all in, this is one of them. I'm personally more of a fan of the 2rax reaper but you have to have multiple builds in your book or you become predictable of course.
All hail to diversifying stuff, but there is no way that we should buff powerful 1-2 base allins even further.
I disagree, we should make them more powerful. This was the thing with early game WoL, people were like 'all ins are too powerful, let's make bases safer' and hoped people would do less all ins, well, what happened was that people would just open up more greedy and the amount of all ins remained a constant.
If we make all ins more powerful people will just be less inclined to FE which has an added bonus of brining more action in the early game which was much more exciting on say XNC.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land. There's a whole host of other ways to innovate rather than powering up well known strong all ins. There's a whole lot of harm via the map being denounced in the progaming community for this to happen. What happens when a sponsor sees that the map that they sponsored turns out to be complete utter shit because blink stalkers run rampant? Is that one potentially awesome moment of double sided blink stalker control worth it (which is highly unlikely to even happen)? Is it not conceivable that said sponsor would think that sponsoring mapping contests which turn out shit maps a terrible investment?
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Graveside is a map where this kind of harass is viable. Yet, isn't broken by blink stalkers due to the attack distance being much longer than the defense distance. We're willing to give maps a chance when it comes to blink stalkers, only when the conditions I said earlier are not met is when we have an issue.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
No you're actually just factually wrong. Cannon rushing Terran is, unless you're Gaulzi, not viable. Any decent Terran player can delay a cannon rush long enough for marines to come out and kill cannons. Against Zerg all you're doing is forcing a patrolling drone (nice handicap). In PvP you basically force weird building placements to make these rushes not viable or the meta becomes cannon rushes. Nice metagame shaekup. There's literally no added value to making cannon rushes easier, and there's a ton of negatives. Including making foreign mapping look like a joke which is a serious long term harm.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land.
Indeed, that is where I'm sadly living because people are hell bent on not letting me actually experiment with these things on the ladder to see if I can make them work. I sometimes do play customs on some-what more unconventional maps and there I do make these strategies often work. Sometimes they fail miserably, sometimes they work. Would be great if I could just do that on a random ladder game. There was a time when a new map was announced you'd see the layout and instantly the cogs in your head started turning about strategies you'd be able to do on those maps but not any more. If you see a new ladder map announced you can just copy whatever you have on other maps.
There's a whole host of other ways to innovate rather than powering up well known strong all ins.
Yes, and that host of other ways isn't happening because people are phobic about changing the standard out of fear that well known all ins are powered up.
There's a whole lot of harm via the map being denounced in the progaming community for this to happen.
Yah, that is why KeSPA is a dictatorship, progamers are just going to have to swallow that they exist to entertain us not the other way around.
What happens when a sponsor sees that the map that they sponsored turns out to be complete utter shit because blink stalkers run rampant? Is that one potentially awesome moment of double sided blink stalker control worth it (which is highly unlikely to even happen)? Is it not conceivable that said sponsor would think that sponsoring mapping contests which turn out shit maps a terrible investment?
What happens when 80% of reddit is bitching about what a let down Red Bull TLMC was and no one is actually watching Red Bull because they don't give a damn about the maps as the maps are the same as always?
I don't know about you but I stayed up tow atch every GSL came with Icarus in it because I was super excited about how it might play out. I never claimed that it would be balanced, I didn't know, but I wanted to see so badly what people would do on it.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
No you're actually just factually wrong. Cannon rushing Terran is, unless you're Gaulzi, not viable. Any decent Terran player can delay a cannon rush long enough for marines to come out and kill cannons.[/quote]Unless there is a super abusive cannon spot which allows you to lock a probe inside behind the minerals lines with a single pylon. Which is the situation we were talking about.
Against Zerg all you're doing is forcing a patrolling drone (nice handicap).
Why not, suddenly a Zerg has to respond to a probe scout immediately lest they are cannoned. This means that on this map there is more incentive to probe scout because Zerg has to take it seriously so you can mind game a Zerg hard by sending a probe scout or even faking the rush to force an overreaction in drones pulled.
In PvP you basically force weird building placements to make these rushes not viable or the meta becomes cannon rushes. Nice metagame shaekup. There's literally no added value to making cannon rushes easier, and there's a ton of negatives. Including making foreign mapping look like a joke which is a serious long term harm.
See above for value. It does have an effect on the metagame. Apart from that. The main reason is that it shouldn't serve to automatically disqualify an otherwise good map.
I could not agree more wholeheartedly. I have discussed this a lot with my friends and they all agree the map pool is stale. In BW there were maps with like 70% winrate for a race but it worked out overall because it was just one map out of the whole map pool. We need diversity. And maps are the best way for the meta game to change. Every single map has the same general feel on it. I havent seen a true map specific build since like 2011 gsl.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land.
Indeed, that is where I'm sadly living because people are hell bent on not letting me actually experiment with these things on the ladder to see if I can make them work. I sometimes do play customs on some-what more unconventional maps and there I do make these strategies often work. Sometimes they fail miserably, sometimes they work. Would be great if I could just do that on a random ladder game. There was a time when a new map was announced you'd see the layout and instantly the cogs in your head started turning about strategies you'd be able to do on those maps but not any more. If you see a new ladder map announced you can just copy whatever you have on other maps.
You seem to think I'm against innovation? Please don't mistake me for that. I'm all for innovation. But innovation =/= powering up well known abusive all ins. Please get this straight and know that you can actually innovate without powering up all ins (which you seem to like as an Icarus fan).
There's a whole host of other ways to innovate rather than powering up well known strong all ins.
Yes, and that host of other ways isn't happening because people are phobic about changing the standard out of fear that well known all ins are powered up.
Again, I'm all for innovation and I hope people become less phobic about this.
What happens when a sponsor sees that the map that they sponsored turns out to be complete utter shit because blink stalkers run rampant? Is that one potentially awesome moment of double sided blink stalker control worth it (which is highly unlikely to even happen)? Is it not conceivable that said sponsor would think that sponsoring mapping contests which turn out shit maps a terrible investment?
What happens when 80% of reddit is bitching about what a let down Red Bull TLMC was and no one is actually watching Red Bull because they don't give a damn about the maps as the maps are the same as always?
80% of Reddit wasn't bitching. It was mostly you and you fanning the flames of hate.
I don't know about you but I stayed up tow atch every GSL came with Icarus in it because I was super excited about how it might play out. I never claimed that it would be balanced, I didn't know, but I wanted to see so badly what people would do on it.
Ultimately, it can swing either way.
I agree that innovative maps can draw an audience. Again, I'm all for innovation.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
No you're actually just factually wrong. Cannon rushing Terran is, unless you're Gaulzi, not viable. Any decent Terran player can delay a cannon rush long enough for marines to come out and kill cannons.
Unless there is a super abusive cannon spot which allows you to lock a probe inside behind the minerals lines with a single pylon. Which is the situation we were talking about.
Against Zerg all you're doing is forcing a patrolling drone (nice handicap).
Why not, suddenly a Zerg has to respond to a probe scout immediately lest they are cannoned. This means that on this map there is more incentive to probe scout because Zerg has to take it seriously so you can mind game a Zerg hard by sending a probe scout or even faking the rush to force an overreaction in drones pulled.
In PvP you basically force weird building placements to make these rushes not viable or the meta becomes cannon rushes. Nice metagame shaekup. There's literally no added value to making cannon rushes easier, and there's a ton of negatives. Including making foreign mapping look like a joke which is a serious long term harm.
See above for value. It does have an effect on the metagame. Apart from that. The main reason is that it shouldn't serve to automatically disqualify an otherwise good map.
If there was a good map with this feature we would just change the position of the minerals. I'm not sure what deluded world you're living in if you think that making cannon rushes more viable than requiring 3 pylons to execute is a good idea. Cannon rushing is already viable, at least it is balanced by risk/reward. Making it more accessible changes that balance in a way that is detrimental. Simple as that.
EDIT: I'm reviewing the games from TLMC and I'm seeing a whole lot of metagame innovation -- some of it subtle (on Polaris for instance) and some of it not so subtle (shrieking breeze). All without needing mains exposed to blink or cannon rushes!
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land.
Indeed, that is where I'm sadly living because people are hell bent on not letting me actually experiment with these things on the ladder to see if I can make them work. I sometimes do play customs on some-what more unconventional maps and there I do make these strategies often work. Sometimes they fail miserably, sometimes they work. Would be great if I could just do that on a random ladder game. There was a time when a new map was announced you'd see the layout and instantly the cogs in your head started turning about strategies you'd be able to do on those maps but not any more. If you see a new ladder map announced you can just copy whatever you have on other maps.
You seem to think I'm against innovation? Please don't mistake me for that. I'm all for innovation. But innovation =/= powering up well known abusive all ins. Please get this straight and know that you can actually innovate without powering up all ins (which you seem to like as an Icarus fan).
I don't think you're against innovation, you're just not willing to sacrifice as much for it as I'm willing to. Powering up all ins is a small price to pay to innovate as far as I'm concerned. Yes, you can innovate without powering them up, but you will innovate less ultimately if you restrict your innovations to rules like 'not power up well known all ins'. Another thing is that I like powering up well known all ins in a lot of cases not as a means justified by an end, but as an end on itself. I'd like to see what terrans would come up with on a map where you will 100% die to a blink all in if you go 1 rax expand. Suddenly the 1 rax expand build is off the table, find something new Terrans.
There's a whole lot of harm via the map being denounced in the progaming community for this to happen.
Yah, that is why KeSPA is a dictatorship, progamers are just going to have to swallow that they exist to entertain us not the other way around.
??????????????
The job of a progamer is to gain sponsor exposure by entertaining fans. Ultimately, winning a tournament is nice but Alex Garfield knows that winning is only one way of giving sponsorship exposure. Another is having the balls to pick a map that is out there and come with a super entertaining and unique strategy on it so people will watch that game that is on top of reddit like 'omg, did you see what TLO just did on that map?' and boom the sponsors are a bit happier.
THe job of a progamer is to be famous and gather attention, winning is only one of the many ways. In fact, losing is another. People still talk about Pokju because he generated the most embarrassing losses ever.
80% of Reddit wasn't bitching. It was mostly you and you fanning the flames of hate
The overwhelming majority consensus of reddit in that thread was dissapointment.Judging the top comments in order:
#1: A huge rant about how dissapointing it was that took over a page, upvoted to the top, it's no secret that people vote based purely on if they agree or not #2 "congrats to the finalists" #3 wax saying that progamers complained a lot #4 "I had expected more" #5 first positive comment about a map "I'm just happy someone made a rising lava map" #6 another huge rant #7 "why does it seem like its the same central group of mappers always being picked for these?" #8 "Graveside and Shreiking Breeze are the only ones that tried something different kind of" #9 "New polaris seems to be the only one that really goes outside the box. Im really tired of the high main base low natural into a second ramp setup." #10 "Man, there's a lot of hate in this thread. I mean, the maps aren't perfect, but I still think they're pretty cool"
The majority consensus is dissapointment on reddit.
If there was a good map with this feature we would just change the position of the minerals.
Why? Why can't a super powerful cannon spot not be part of the metagame of a map if it can be dealt why?
'm not sure what deluded world you're living in if you think that making cannon rushes more viable than requiring 3 pylons to execute is a good idea.
Why not? Why can't we have one map in the pool that does this?
Is this part of this mentality that 'cheese and all in isn't a real game'?
Cannon rushing is already viable, at least it is balanced by risk/reward. Making it more accessible changes that balance in a way that is detrimental. Simple as that.
Yeah, or you just put a depot or a pylon in that one abusive spot before your opponent does. What's the harm if it can be easily dealt with?
It creates a different base layout, there's a pylon there at your minaral line so that's where your gateway is going to be, suddenly it can be hit from the lowground opening it up for all knew kinds of harassments, it shakes up the metagame.
#1 is your rant (which I disagree with but you know, reddit loves to create drama) #2 isn't positive or negative #3 isn't positive or negative (it was actually wax saying unorthodoxy is correlated with progamer complaints) #4 Disappointed mapper that they didn't make the finalists. [But is entirely incorrect about map being excluded for innovation] #5 "I had expected more" sure. #6 Lava mecanic (positive) #7 huge rant (gr9 posters btw) [thanks for bashing me in that comment, btw] #8 Central group of map makers -- factually incorrect. Samro/eTcetRa/meerel only repeat mappers from TLMC2, Samro only mapper from TLMC1 in TLMC3. Winner of TLMC2 wasn't even selected. #9 Graveside/Shrieking/Polaris complement. #10 Comment about WCS and mapping/complement for new polaris
Reddit is generally very negative and loves drama, given your huge rant which helped create negativity, I think that's not too bad for a contest where people were inevitably going to be butthurt about the results (regardless of the finalists selected).
I'm done responding to your metagame complaints. Mostly because we're starting to go around in circles and you've kinda dropped/cherry picked a lot of stuff.
On November 05 2013 04:23 Plexa wrote: Re: reddit.
#1 is your rant (which I disagree with but you know, reddit loves to create drama)
Where the consensus on reddit is that community figures call any amount of criticism on their operations such as Artosis' repeated and blatant defraudation of people 'drama'.
Criticism != drama.
#2 isn't positive or negative
Agreed
#3 isn't positive or negative (it was actually wax saying unorthodoxy is correlated with progamer complaints)
Agreed again
#4 Disappointed mapper that they didn't make the finalists. [But is entirely incorrect about map being excluded for innovation]
That it'' s a disappointed mapper doesn't change it, you could argue that I'm a dissapointed mapper myself and I'm only saying this out of spite. (I am on record on TL though saying similar stuff about a little contest where I did make it to the finals where I still argued it was meaningless and subjective)
#5 "I had expected more" sure.
agreed
#6 Lava mecanic (positive)
agreed
#7 huge rant (gr9 posters btw) [thanks for bashing me in that comment, btw]
agreed.
Also, you seem to continually think I'm 'bashing' you when I'm just saying I find it to be controlled by too few people. I've made my stance on democracy even if it goes against my picks well known in that topic.
[
#8 Central group of map makers -- factually incorrect. Samro/eTcetRa/meerel only repeat mappers from TLMC2, Samro only mapper from TLMC1 in TLMC3. Winner of TLMC2 wasn't even selected.
incorrect as it may be, it's still a negative
#9 Graveside/Shrieking/Polaris complement.
Agreed
#10 Comment about WCS and mapping/complement for new polaris
Agreed
(I left out the comments which did not comment on the contest but other things by the way, you didn't)
Reddit is generally very negative
Or TL is overly positive, who knows. Many people on reddit do complain that the moderation policy on TL has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. You might want to consider if the positivity on TL isn't artificial to some degree.
and loves drama
Or be critical
given your huge rant which helped create negativity
It did not 'create' negativity, it voiced negativity which existed. The results of the contest created the negativity.
I think that's not too bad for a contest where people were inevitably going to be butthurt about the results (regardless of the finalists selected).
People where overwhelmingly more positive about TLMC 1 though and even more negative about TLMC 2. TLMC 1 happened at a time where people weren't yet tired of every map being the same because not every map was the same back then.
I'm done responding to your metagame complaints. Mostly because we're starting to go around in circles and you've kinda dropped/cherry picked a lot of stuff.
Metagame complaints are the raison d'être of this discussion. The entire discussion is in fact about allowing such things as "broken" cannon rushes. In this case there is nothing but to agree to disagree. You think as axiom that it is bad for the game, I think as axiom that it is not bad and might even be good.
I still want to know why you think all the TLMC are standard and won't bring anything to the table. Let's go through them. Also, there are plenty of other things in these maps that I'm not pointing out, but these are some of the main ones.
Blitzkrieg" Two ramps at natural entrance. Backdoor patio. Lots of blink surface. Mirrored Map. Option for 3rds. Option for 4ths. Middle base to fight over end game. Small choke in center middle so maybe not many larger units will be used.
Graveside: Inbase natural. Backdoor rocks. Harassable out of base nat. Plenty of blink surface. No watchtowers.
Habitation Station: Since it's my map I'm not going to point out everything I think it could do.
Jungle Valley: Can't scout by ground. That alone will force a change in the meta game.
Polaris: Same level main / nat. Main is cannonable (parting show us this in the finals and even though San was prepared for it, Parting was still able to pull it off). Lava.
Shrieking Breeze: Double choice of natural. Double ramps. Collapsable rocks. Can't scout through middle. All spawns available. half bases.
Synapse: Base hugging main. Lots of blink surface. Can cannon from lowground from hugging base. Interesting middle bases. Interesting ramps/chokes in middle.
To me, a lot of these maps have features that can force metagame changes. Just because one of these maps doesn't have a 5 mineral base with 0 gas or because it doesn't have a spot that you can use 1 pylon to make a wall behind the mineral line doesn't make them bad. What I'm gathering from you is because a protoss player can forge > FE or gate > FE on every map means the map sucks.
On November 05 2013 05:24 SidianTheBard wrote: I still want to know why you think all the TLMC are standard and won't bring anything to the table.
I never said they were all standard.
Blitzkrieg" Two ramps at natural entrance
Pretty new
Backdoor patio. Lots of blink surface. Mirrored Map. Option for 3rds. Option for 4ths. Middle base to fight over end game. Small choke in center middle so maybe not many larger units will be used.
All done before a thousand time, hardly an innovation.
Graveside: Inbase natural. Backdoor rocks
Unusual, but done before a thousand times
Harassable out of base nat. Plenty of blink surface. No watchtowers.
Nothing unusual or innovative
Jungle Valley: Can't scout by ground. That alone will force a change in the meta game.
The first SC2 map I played in fact used this gimmick. Kulas Ravine Novice edition.It was also done in Arkanoid of course. It's unusual, but not innovative.
Polaris: Same level main / nat.
Again, unusual, but not innovative.
Main is cannonable (parting show us this in the finals and even though San was prepared for it, Parting was still able to pull it off).
Surely not innovative nor unusual
Lava.
Very innovative.
Shrieking Breeze: Double choice of natural. Double ramps.
Unusual but not innvative.
Collapsable rocks. Can't scout through middle. All spawns available. half bases.
Neither unusual nor innovative
Synapse: Base hugging main. Lots of blink surface. Can cannon from lowground from hugging base. Interesting middle bases. Interesting ramps/chokes in middle.
Nothing innovative nor unusual.
The point is that even though these maps feature various quirky features. The features are designed in such a way to still let the standard metagame occur with the exception of Polaris and to some extend Jungle. The topic is about basically rendering the openers that are currently standard worthless and force people to find new openers. These maps are all designed to still allow the current openers and strategies.
To me, a lot of these maps have features that can force metagame changes.
At best allow it if progamers really want to, force it, not really.
Just because one of these maps doesn't have a 5 mineral base with 0 gas or because it doesn't have a spot that you can use 1 pylon to make a wall behind the mineral line doesn't make them bad.
It doesn't make them bad. It just makes a map pool which has them in it lacking variety. CK is obviously a great map but once it's in a map pool where every map is close to CK it gets boring.
Changing the resource layout is the easiest way to force a metagame shift because none of your old builds will contniue to work with a different resource intake.
What I'm gathering from you is because a protoss player can forge > FE or gate > FE on every map means the map sucks.
Yes, exactly, if there is a strategy or openers that can work on every map in the map pool then the map pool needs re-analysation as far as I'm concerned. It means you can be a one trick poney effectively. Which is exactly what happens on the ladder. Many people know 3 strategies, one for each race they play against and do this on every map.
I must be confused because earlier you were saying you wanted maps that were good for cannoning or good for blink stalkers and I just pointed out the maps that would be good for cannoning or blink stalkers and you come back with it's nothing innovative or unusual.
But either way, even though one strategy can work on every single map doesn't mean it is the strategy that should be used. 11/11rax TvZ was amazing on Entombed Valley and you saw that strategy so many times because of how strong it was. It also had the bunker placement spot below the natural ramp that you could park a marine behind. Pretty sure it was MVP who pulled that one out. I thought (i could be wrong on this) but after the MVP game doing that bunker rush, they ended up going back and fixing it so that bunker rush wasn't able to be done anymore. 11/11 was still very strong on the map but now was it the ideal strategy to use?
Same goes for a game on Metalopolis with Nestea vs Alive (not positive if it was alive) but for some reason the version they played on didn't have the rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, Alive figured that out, did the bunker block on the ramp and Nestea was screwed because every other version has rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, but not this one. Again, it was immediately fixed afterwards. If bunker/pylon blocking was still available today on say 10% of the map pool, would that be enjoyable to watch? "Nestea forgot to patrol 2 drones at the bottom of his ramp, he loses 100%!!!"
I think you also don't understand that no matter what map you play on, you will still see the same Gate > FE or Forge > FE gameplay.
Let's theorycraft since you apparently love to do that so much.
You think just because the main only had 5m0g that we still wouldn't see a forge fe? If a base has a low amount of resource nodes Terran and mules play a big role since terran is very mineral heavy. They won't have to expand as often because they don't rely on as much gas. Protoss and Zerg though, will be screwed. So now, it's not a map design problem, it's a unit design problem. Now we have to go in and change mules & marines.
How do you stop a protoss from doing a forge > fe or gateway > fe? If the natural is not safe enough then they have to sit on 1 base for too long so at that point might as well either 1-base all-in or cheese. Well, we already see 1-base all-ins and cheese even on maps where naturals are super safe. So why force a map that will basically require it? Look waaay back in WoL with Xel'Naga Caverns. The natural was very unsafe and protoss finally found a way to make their economy not as far behind by doing the 3gate sentry expand. Only problem is you still had to push out with all your sentries and do some type of damage otherwise you were still very far behind.
Okay okay, well let's make the natural safe, but put a ton of surface area around the natural so you can blink up on any side! Well, now protoss will just do their normal gate > fe into blink. There is too much surface area that it's going to be extremely difficult to defend it. (Then again, if Siskos can defend a blink all-in with no bunkers and just a few marauders apparently everybody can)
You think as axiom that it is bad for the game, I think as axiom that it is not bad and might even be good.
Then your entire argument is pointless, because, given that you believe the thing in question (re: broken cannon rush spots) to be neutral viz. "good" gameplay (whatever that is) in an axiomatic fashion, it is impossible to really offer any (even near) conclusive argument for your position. If I take y as an axiom and you take x as an axiom, then there's really no point in arguing about y or x, because they're axioms. They are granted without justification. What you're doing is trying to ask Plexa to justify his axiom (which is nonsensical because it's an axiom, and is one that virtually everyone is in agreement about) and then reading too much into everything and anything and making critiques you know are ridiculous (seriously, your counter-argument to someone who used the word "impossible" in a clearly hyperbolic (figurative) sense was to debate whether such a thing was actually logically impossible, even though you know, by the conventions of the English language, that that wasn't what the speaker was really trying to assert).
This entire thread is just a series of annoyingly sophistical rants. You generalize things to a universal level when it suits your argument, but go right ahead and retreat into the mere existential qualifier when that's easier. You can't really have it both ways, but you're gonna do it anyway cause that's what you do, here, and on Reddit.
PS: "Drama" just means controversy. People arguing and posting rants obviously implies tension and controversy.
If you think that only glaring changes like PREVENTING ZERG FROM TAKING A NATURAL are considered innovative and not anything else that is being tried/been tried then bro, your list of "innovations" is going to be very, very small.
I will agree (if that is your opinion) that it is WAY, WAY too easy for the races to get a third and fourth base on a lot of these maps. I personally think that it is a matter of DISTANCE between nat and third, not safety of third sim-city.
But I don't understand the majority of your arguments dude. It seems like you flip-flop back and forth all over the place (which is fine, if that's really what's going on - I do it a lot sometimes, until I really hammer out where I stand with discourse). A map is more than one or two of its components, it's the whole put together. I don't you're representing the host of possible combinations with enough merit. It shouldn't just be the change itself that is innovative, it should be the comination of map features...the WHOLE.
Shrieking Breeze is rediculous. A bit too rediculous almost, but look how much the CENTER ACTUALLY MATTERS. It matters a lot. If an army were to go around the center to attack an opponent (from either direction given travel and good scouting) the opponent should be capable of having an insane arc (HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT SPACIAL CONTROL OF RAMPS AND THE POWER OF DROPS?). Thus, back to the middle. It actually fucking matters.
And look at the whole main-nat-third interaction! That is incredible! I mean perhaps not to the extent that I visualize in my head (this is all just theorycrafting, yes, and a teeny bit of Protoss sim-city will do wonders against Zerg), but that is CERTAINLY something that in combination with the center produces a unique map. Several pieces have been done to death - but the combination has produced a unique and interesting whole.
I've come to a new opinion regarding Polaris Rhapsody, and that is that it is a VERY BORING MAP. Outside of the lava mechanic (which occurs ONCE every FIVE minutes - not nearly enough to influence interesting backstab/positional gameplay) it demonstrates a common problem of most new maps - very easy (VERY, VERY easy - leading to horrible strategies like mech which are ATROCIOUS to watch) to take third and fourth, and even fifth! Of course, (being in the wonderful theorycraft land that we all love) this might change, but since BASE LAYOUT matters more than any other component of SC2 maps and dictates the sort of play YOU want to see, then that should always be the basis of your judging...
Everyone (like you, I would assume from what I have read) is voting for it and saying it is innovative because of "oooh, lava!," without considering the far more important game dictating mechanic, which is base layout. Of your comment on "innovative constructs," this is the only claim that really holds weight in my regard and is currently making the metagame boring and extremely stale. For a race like Protoss, not having to work for a third at least a LITTLE bit INFURIRATES me (bias of course).
I think there are a lot of crazy map constructions of main/nat/third that have not been tried which I would love to see done (I have been playing with them myself! But I would be teared to pieces if I posted one - maybe I might show it to Plexa!)
The problem then, is and has been one of balls and league format. Eventually, PL or GSTL will use a crazy map and it will get enough recognition to be used in tourneys.
But as long as tournaments outside of WCS do not make it their perogative to use a host of innovative community made maps every tournament, develop a standard of judging (perhaps even keeping two or three of the well recieved maps the NEXT tournament...) and cultivate a rich map-making culture, this part of the game, which holds the most potential for strategic growth outside of LOTV, will continue to be grossly ignored.
It is wrong and it hurts me and scars my soul and saddens me every time I leave the Custom Maps forum, but Blizzard has shown over the past three years that they are doing next to NOTHING to help the mapping scene flourish and will CONTINUE to do so. So the answer has to come from all tournaments outside WCS (Redbull is using only one...how fucking sad).
Fuck WCS points. New maps coupled with strong players will make your tourney more interesting anyhow.
POLARIS RHAPSODY:
The spoiler contains my original post! Having watched the game of TLO vs. Skyhigh, I've got to say that Polaris Rhapsody is a fucking sexy map but I'm still up in arms about how you can control 4 bases by controlling one pod (mech T_T). The importance of that position coupled with the giant amount of space in the main might make drops more prominant, though. Otherwise the execution of the map is just superb (main could seriously be a bit smaller lol) and I really really love the Broodwar style high cliff airspace. Obviously the lava mechanic is new and it is executed pretty damn well, I just wish the period was around 4:00 instead of 5:00 since that would make counterattacks even more prominant (fuck even 3:00 if you really, REALLY wanted to influence the pace of the game).
On November 05 2013 06:26 SidianTheBard wrote: I must be confused because earlier you were saying you wanted maps that were good for cannoning or good for blink stalkers and I just pointed out the maps that would be good for cannoning or blink stalkers and you come back with it's nothing innovative or unusual.
I said no such thing, I said it wasn't a reason to disqualify them.
But either way, even though one strategy can work on every single map doesn't mean it is the strategy that should be used. 11/11rax TvZ was amazing on Entombed Valley and you saw that strategy so many times because of how strong it was. It also had the bunker placement spot below the natural ramp that you could park a marine behind. Pretty sure it was MVP who pulled that one out. I thought (i could be wrong on this) but after the MVP game doing that bunker rush, they ended up going back and fixing it so that bunker rush wasn't able to be done anymore. 11/11 was still very strong on the map but now was it the ideal strategy to use?
It isn't, but 11/11 wasn't the strat which worked on all maps at the time, 1 rax expand was, and still is that strategy.
Same goes for a game on Metalopolis with Nestea vs Alive (not positive if it was alive) but for some reason the version they played on didn't have the rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, Alive figured that out, did the bunker block on the ramp and Nestea was screwed because every other version has rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, but not this one. Again, it was immediately fixed afterwards. If bunker/pylon blocking was still available today on say 10% of the map pool, would that be enjoyable to watch? "Nestea forgot to patrol 2 drones at the bottom of his ramp, he loses 100%!!!"
"Forgot to raise depot" -> loses 100% "Forgot to put zealot on hold position" -> looses 100% "Forgot to make spores against dts" -> looses 100% "Forgot stim" -> looses 100%
This is the reality of the game already I'm afraid.
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented.
I think you also don't understand that no matter what map you play on, you will still see the same Gate > FE or Forge > FE gameplay.
Of course not, you could never 1gate FE or FFE on XNC, you needed to go at least 2 or 3gate FE with sentries on XNC to secure a natural.
You think just because the main only had 5m0g that we still wouldn't see a forge fe?
No, I'm saying that with a 5m0g main every strategy currently used would have to be re-adjusted. We might see a completely different FFE build order or no FFE at all.
If a base has a low amount of resource nodes Terran and mules play a big role since terran is very mineral heavy. They won't have to expand as often because they don't rely on as much gas. Protoss and Zerg though, will be screwed. So now, it's not a map design problem, it's a unit design problem. Now we have to go in and change mules & marines.
Or the reverse happens, because T needs minerals more but it gives less minerals etc etc etc.
Anyway, your argument supposes Icarus to be T favoured, that didn't happen, so yeah.
How do you stop a protoss from doing a forge > fe or gateway > fe? If the natural is not safe enough then they have to sit on 1 base for too long so at that point might as well either 1-base all-in or cheese. Well, we already see 1-base all-ins and cheese even on maps where naturals are super safe. So why force a map that will basically require it? Look waaay back in WoL with Xel'Naga Caverns. The natural was very unsafe and protoss finally found a way to make their economy not as far behind by doing the 3gate sentry expand. Only problem is you still had to push out with all your sentries and do some type of damage otherwise you were still very far behind.
Yeah, it was an amazing time of the game where there was actually interaction in PvZ before the 10 minute mark. I don't see the problem with forcing a player to push out and do damage. It's been well accepted these days that people complain players are playing too defensively.
(Then again, if Siskos can defend a blink all-in with no bunkers and just a few marauders apparently everybody can)
[/i]Yeah, everyone can defend a blink all in if they go 2rax. The blink all in 4gate build is designed as a counter against FE. It doesn't work if someone goes 2rax expand. Stalkers are actually hilariously cost in effecient against bio as we all know, it relies on hitting before T has any bio and bypassing the bunkers they use to make up for it, if you have enough bio and medivacs and stim already when it hits, which you will have with a 2rax expo, you're good to go,
Blink all ins suck against 2rax, the build is entirely designed to go up against an FE.
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented.
No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends.
People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone.
If you think that only glaring changes like PREVENTING ZERG FROM TAKING A NATURAL are considered innovative and not anything else that is being tried/been tried then bro, your list of "innovations" is going to be very, very small.
I will agree (if that is your opinion) that it is WAY, WAY too easy for the races to get a third and fourth base on a lot of these maps. I personally think that it is a matter of DISTANCE between nat and third, not safety of third sim-city.
But I don't understand the majority of your arguments dude. It seems like you flip-flop back and forth all over the place (which is fine, if that's really what's going on - I do it a lot sometimes, until I really hammer out where I stand with discourse). A map is more than one or two of its components, it's the whole put together. I don't you're representing the host of possible combinations with enough merit. It shouldn't just be the change itself that is innovative, it should be the comination of map features...the WHOLE.
Shrieking Breeze is rediculous. A bit too rediculous almost, but look how much the CENTER ACTUALLY MATTERS. It matters a lot. If an army were to go around the center to attack an opponent (from either direction given travel and good scouting) the opponent should be capable of having an insane arc (HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT SPACIAL CONTROL OF RAMPS AND THE POWER OF DROPS?). Thus, back to the middle. It actually fucking matters.
And look at the whole main-nat-third interaction! That is incredible! I mean perhaps not to the extent that I visualize in my head (this is all just theorycrafting, yes, and a teeny bit of Protoss sim-city will do wonders against Zerg), but that is CERTAINLY something that in combination with the center produces a unique map. Several pieces have been done to death - but the combination has produced a unique and interesting whole.
I've come to a new opinion regarding Polaris Rhapsody, and that is that it is a VERY BORING MAP. Outside of the lava mechanic (which occurs ONCE every FIVE minutes - not nearly enough to influence interesting backstab/positional gameplay) it demonstrates a common problem of most new maps - very easy (VERY, VERY easy - leading to horrible strategies like mech which are ATROCIOUS to watch) to take third and fourth, and even fifth! Of course, (being in the wonderful theorycraft land that we all love) this might change, but since BASE LAYOUT matters more than any other component of SC2 maps and dictates the sort of play YOU want to see, then that should always be the basis of your judging...
Everyone (like you, I would assume from what I have read) is voting for it and saying it is innovative because of "oooh, lava!," without considering the far more important game dictating mechanic, which is base layout. Of your comment on "innovative constructs," this is the only claim that really holds weight in my regard and is currently making the metagame boring and extremely stale. For a race like Protoss, not having to work for a third at least a LITTLE bit INFURIRATES me (bias of course).
I think there are a lot of crazy map constructions of main/nat/third that have not been tried which I would love to see done (I have been playing with them myself! But I would be teared to pieces if I posted one - maybe I might show it to Plexa!)
The problem then, is and has been one of balls and league format. Eventually, PL or GSTL will use a crazy map and it will get enough recognition to be used in tourneys.
But as long as tournaments outside of WCS do not make it their perogative to use a host of innovative community made maps every tournament, develop a standard of judging (perhaps even keeping two or three of the well recieved maps the NEXT tournament...) and cultivate a rich map-making culture, this part of the game, which holds the most potential for strategic growth outside of LOTV, will continue to be grossly ignored.
It is wrong and it hurts me and scars my soul and saddens me every time I leave the Custom Maps forum, but Blizzard has shown over the past three years that they are doing next to NOTHING to help the mapping scene flourish and will CONTINUE to do so. So the answer has to come from all tournaments outside WCS (Redbull is using only one...how fucking sad).
Fuck WCS points. New maps coupled with strong players will make your tourney more interesting anyhow.
POLARIS RHAPSODY:
The spoiler contains my original post! Having watched the game of TLO vs. Skyhigh, I've got to say that Polaris Rhapsody is a fucking sexy map but I'm still up in arms about how you can control 4 bases by controlling one pod (mech T_T). The importance of that position coupled with the giant amount of space in the main might make drops more prominant, though. Otherwise the execution of the map is just superb (main could seriously be a bit smaller lol) and I really really love the Broodwar style high cliff airspace. Obviously the lava mechanic is new and it is executed pretty damn well, I just wish the period was around 4:00 instead of 5:00 since that would make counterattacks even more prominant (fuck even 3:00 if you really, REALLY wanted to influence the pace of the game).
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented.
No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends.
People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone.
Yeah, why not also create a mechanic that auto raises depots so Terrans can't be killed by a Zerg who leaves the depots open by a random runby. They have lings, they see the opening, they take it.
If you don't want to die from mistakes don't make them. Don't expect the game or the map to hold your hand.
Apart from that, there have been some notable comebacks against pylon blocks which were all the more exciting
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented.
No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends.
People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone.
Yeah, why not also create a mechanic that auto raises depots so Terrans can't be killed by a Zerg who leaves the depots open by a random runby. They have lings, they see the opening, they take it.
If you don't want to die from mistakes don't make them. Don't expect the game or the map to hold your hand.
Apart from that, there have been some notable comebacks against pylon blocks which were all the more exciting
I don't expect the game to hold my hand. It's just a better game if it does in situations that have a very random nature. (e.g. early game rushes in which BOs and tiny control mistakes don't just give tiny advantages)
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented.
No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends.
People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone.
Yeah, why not also create a mechanic that auto raises depots so Terrans can't be killed by a Zerg who leaves the depots open by a random runby. They have lings, they see the opening, they take it.
If you don't want to die from mistakes don't make them. Don't expect the game or the map to hold your hand.
Apart from that, there have been some notable comebacks against pylon blocks which were all the more exciting
I don't expect the game to hold my hand. It's just a better game if it does in situations that have a very random nature. (e.g. early game rushes in which BOs and tiny control mistakes don't just give tiny advantages)
There is nothing random about pulling a drone in time to block. It's 3 pylons. Many maps allow cannons behind the minerals with 3 pylons, if that happens in PvP if you allow the probe to get the 3 down you are significantly behind about as much as being locked in and stopping the cannon rush will be hard. The answer is to react immediately the moment the probe plants the first and pull probes to block it, there's nothing 'random' about it.
An alternative solution is of course to probe/drone scout and see the early forge and put a worker there already. The standard opener in PvZ with a forge expand is nexus first, if P is goes forge first then P is looking to cannon, a single drone of the line is well worth it that P went forge first and didn't get to cannon.
It's ultimately part of the ancient mentality that 'cheese' is not a real game and people trying to design maps to limit that. The entire mentality of hyper-safe naturals that currently exist are a function of that, except it didn't work to reduce cheese at all. The amount of cheese remained a constant, it just resulted into people opening up more greedily thereby making the old cheeses work again in spite of the more easily defensible naturals.
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented.
No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends.
People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone.
Yeah, why not also create a mechanic that auto raises depots so Terrans can't be killed by a Zerg who leaves the depots open by a random runby. They have lings, they see the opening, they take it.
If you don't want to die from mistakes don't make them. Don't expect the game or the map to hold your hand.
Apart from that, there have been some notable comebacks against pylon blocks which were all the more exciting
I don't expect the game to hold my hand. It's just a better game if it does in situations that have a very random nature. (e.g. early game rushes in which BOs and tiny control mistakes don't just give tiny advantages)
There is nothing random about pulling a drone in time to block. It's 3 pylons. Many maps allow cannons behind the minerals with 3 pylons, if that happens in PvP if you allow the probe to get the 3 down you are significantly behind about as much as being locked in and stopping the cannon rush will be hard. The answer is to react immediately the moment the probe plants the first and pull probes to block it, there's nothing 'random' about it.
An alternative solution is of course to probe/drone scout and see the early forge and put a worker there already. The standard opener in PvZ with a forge expand is nexus first, if P is goes forge first then P is looking to cannon, a single drone of the line is well worth it that P went forge first and didn't get to cannon.
It's ultimately part of the ancient mentality that 'cheese' is not a real game and people trying to design maps to limit that. The entire mentality of hyper-safe naturals that currently exist are a function of that, except it didn't work to reduce cheese at all. The amount of cheese remained a constant, it just resulted into people opening up more greedily thereby making the old cheeses work again in spite of the more easily defensible naturals.
Nobody is saying it is hard to prevent if you just do everything right. It's just a strategy that the game does not need to have buffed, just like we don't buff early pools by making it impossible to wall off, drops/mutalisks by making air rushdistances ridiculously short or - hell - let 2players spawn neck headquarter on headquarter to see the "awesome strategies that develop if the workers are attacking each other 5seconds in the game".
Basically what you are saying is that we should have everything in the game - despite noone liking it - just because it may not be broken. Strategywise it's ok, but gameplaywise it's just wrong. We don't want "any" strategies. We want fun/interesting strategies. I don't want to have the "better" player determined by him remembering every game that he has to send a worker somewhere early "just in case". That's not a showcase of skill, that's just a stupid task.
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented.
No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends.
People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone.
Yeah, why not also create a mechanic that auto raises depots so Terrans can't be killed by a Zerg who leaves the depots open by a random runby. They have lings, they see the opening, they take it.
If you don't want to die from mistakes don't make them. Don't expect the game or the map to hold your hand.
Apart from that, there have been some notable comebacks against pylon blocks which were all the more exciting
I don't expect the game to hold my hand. It's just a better game if it does in situations that have a very random nature. (e.g. early game rushes in which BOs and tiny control mistakes don't just give tiny advantages)
There is nothing random about pulling a drone in time to block. It's 3 pylons. Many maps allow cannons behind the minerals with 3 pylons, if that happens in PvP if you allow the probe to get the 3 down you are significantly behind about as much as being locked in and stopping the cannon rush will be hard. The answer is to react immediately the moment the probe plants the first and pull probes to block it, there's nothing 'random' about it.
An alternative solution is of course to probe/drone scout and see the early forge and put a worker there already. The standard opener in PvZ with a forge expand is nexus first, if P is goes forge first then P is looking to cannon, a single drone of the line is well worth it that P went forge first and didn't get to cannon.
It's ultimately part of the ancient mentality that 'cheese' is not a real game and people trying to design maps to limit that. The entire mentality of hyper-safe naturals that currently exist are a function of that, except it didn't work to reduce cheese at all. The amount of cheese remained a constant, it just resulted into people opening up more greedily thereby making the old cheeses work again in spite of the more easily defensible naturals.
Nobody is saying it is hard to prevent if you just do everything right.
Many people in fact are. People used to actually believe, and many still do, that this strat was overpowered, unstoppable and what not. My original discussion with mappers was about the pylon/bunker block where they said itw as cmopletely overpowered and "unstoppable", it's very easy to stop if you know it's coming.
It's just a strategy that the game does not need to have buffed, just like we don't buff early pools by making it impossible to wall off, drops/mutalisks by making air rushdistances ridiculously short or - hell - let 2players spawn neck headquarter on headquarter to see the "awesome strategies that develop if the workers are attacking each other 5seconds in the game".
And the thesis of this thread is that those exact things should be buffed, just all on different maps to force variety into the game and different openers for each map. The reason you can open the same on every map is that there is no fear of cheese in this game any more.
Basically what you are saying is that we should have everything in the game - despite noone liking it
Speak for yourself. This topic has 4.5 stars and we all know that stars have nothing to do with the quality of writing and purely how many people agree with the thesis.
I don't want to have the "better" player determined by him remembering every game that he has to send a worker somewhere early "just in case". That's not a showcase of skill, that's just a stupid task.
Neither is constantly making workers but hey, it's a mechanical game.
And the thesis of this thread is that those exact things should be buffed, just all on different maps to force variety into the game and different openers for each map. The reason you can open the same on every map is that there is no fear of cheese in this game any more.
Not really. Nowhere in the OP did you write something like that. You brought up great points about the maps diversifying styles etc, not that you want canonrushing or 10min 1basing to be standard. None of the examples in your OP
was known for being overly aggressive for that time/balancing. And the only real difference to todays maps is the natural layout on some of those maps - which back in the day did not get abused very hard apart from crossfire 1-1-1ing. The bottom 4 of those maps are very standard even for todays measures, apart from a few nifty differences. When I rated your post a 5, I did it because I really like this approach - having a very standard setup but with the one or other twist.
Neither is constantly making workers but hey, it's a mechanical game.
The difference being that skipping many workers is many mistakes. Skipping one worker does not matter a lot - in terms of mechanics it is a similar mistake to not having that worker in place against a superduper-canonspot. With the second one having the potential to end the game or to at least completely destroy your gameplan.
Blink stalker is a tough one. The mobility and the timing it hits is really tight.
If it was something else like a 2 colossus timing all in, there are rooms for the terran to prepare and slow down the push etc.
I certainly can see your side of argument but when it comes to blink stalkers all in, I am not so sure. Another strategy that worked wonder and never really got countered was immortal sentries all in on ohana, even when Zerg got to counter it better on other maps.
So if the strategy becomes too strong on one map, it might not lead to metagame development but a stale one with the map generally getting veto'd
An alternative solution is of course to probe/drone scout and see the early forge and put a worker there already. The standard opener in PvZ with a forge expand is nexus first, if P is goes forge first then P is looking to cannon, a single drone of the line is well worth it that P went forge first and didn't get to cannon.
I don't see how this is interesting, though. You're basically saying that you want to add something that basically requires one patrol a worker, but which doesn't make the game more interesting. It's not like patrolling that one worker actually does anything to the metagame aside from slowing down the Zerg (or whichever) economy a little bit. The point is that it doesn't add any possibilities; if anything, it restricts them by requiring you to mindlessly patrol a worker in one spot every single game against Protoss because, if you don't, you may lose the game instantly. Unlike wall-offs, or other (more interesting) bits of required actions, patrolling a worker adds nothing to the game. Wall-offs affect a variety of things, particularly with respect to hiding tech, engaging at the natural, and so on. Patrolling a worker is seriously just something you "do" until you either see that the Protoss isn't going for a Cannon Rush or until you have enough tech to stop it from working anyway/kill the Probe. In what way is that interesting, or novel, or worth having in the game? Does having neutral Supply Depots wreck something that I'm not aware of? Cause I sure as hell haven't see anything bad come of it.