This looks really good. Even better than Sacred Sands, and thats saying something!
My only concern is with having a choice for a 4th. It seems to me that you can make this possible.
To hold all the red bases you can position your army at the red position, but when one takes the green base as a 4th, the army rather naturally moves to the green position. This is great! You even can leave the destructible debris at the 3rd, and play a rather turtley style. But if you take the Blue 4th the Blue position leaves the main exposed, and it leads to some shady chokes. This also requires the destructible rocks to be destroyed. What I would do would be to take make the green base's ramp larger, and easier for an attacker to enter on. I might also re-arrange how close the Blue base is to the 3rd. + Show Spoiler +
I have to say that this map is marvelous none the less. And my rantings are really just pedantic I really can't find anything majorly wrong with this ramp.
I am curious on your decision on putting one central watch tower since that has been under fire lately. Anyway map looks fantastic I hope to see it go somewhere. I also hope to see a HoTS version!
On December 19 2012 06:41 Veloh15 wrote: I am curious on your decision on putting one central watch tower since that has been under fire lately. Anyway map looks fantastic I hope to see it go somewhere. I also hope to see a HoTS version!
You might see it on HotS and NA for WoL sonner than you think!
I really like it, you actually have a strategic choice between the 3rds, one that is closer to the nat and one that defends your main better from drops. That expands even more when you're in close positions, since for example in PvZ if you take the 3rd that closer to the opponent then they won't be able to take an easy early 4th, they would have to either break the rocks or expand with a very long path to the expansion, but it does make defending your 3rd harder, I simply love these choices
I might give it a play or two if any of my friends will be willing tomorrow
Reminds me of TPW Concrete Dreams and my map Hellholt but it is really well executed. IMO the base configuration in these maps is really the best for 4p maps since it gives the ability to expand in both directions thereby minimizing positional imbalance. You still will have some positional imbalance though. It kinda sucks to me that no tourneys use 4p maps with a layout like this and all spawns enabled. To me its really the forgotten "genre" of map.
On December 19 2012 08:34 Aunvilgod wrote: Only one player has to destroy rocks to get his fourth? Are you kidding me?
Hmm I don't think any player has to kill rocks to get a 4th. You CAN kill the rocks to get an alternate 4th if you don't want to expand towards your opponent (assuming close spawns), but I don't think it's imbalanced b/c while your normal 4th is close to your opponent, his 3rd is towards you. So you both have a vulnerable-ish base.
On December 19 2012 09:41 TheFish7 wrote: Reminds me of TPW Concrete Dreams and my map Hellholt but it is really well executed. IMO the base configuration in these maps is really the best for 4p maps since it gives the ability to expand in both directions thereby minimizing positional imbalance. You still will have some positional imbalance though. It kinda sucks to me that no tourneys use 4p maps with a layout like this and all spawns enabled. To me its really the forgotten "genre" of map.
Yeah it really is the same map as Concrete Dreams just about. But that kind of thing is bound to happen when lots of standard/safe maps are made (I'm not bashing safe maps, they are necessary and sometimes really great, just saying that it's true).
On December 19 2012 08:34 Aunvilgod wrote: Only one player has to destroy rocks to get his fourth? Are you kidding me?
Technically both players have to destroy rocks when expanding to their fourth, assuming they both expand away from their opponent.
On December 19 2012 10:21 EatThePath wrote: This map is really distinct from Concrete Dreams because of the distances and shapes and extra routes.
Both players need to break rocks to continue taking 3rd--->4th away from opponent.
Is this just a reskin? Looks good.
Atlas is a remake of one of my previous maps, Sacred Sands. Most of the major changes are mainly aesthetic, though gameplay improvements have been made too.
I see that each of the mains are color-coded. Why don't you extend the colors to the platforms beneath them? I think that'd be cool. I can see decals that are all just a gray color; you should color code those to match the main bases.
I have no gameplay suggestions though. This map is a solid 4 player rotational map.
On December 23 2012 10:16 EatThePath wrote: I couldn't find any gameplay improvements. Can you explain what changed?
I haven't made any big changes, which is why you'll probably not notice. What I have done is mostly pathing refinement (doodads/cliffs moved/removed/added to change pathing), and the natural choke has been changed.
On December 23 2012 10:27 Antares777 wrote: I see that each of the mains are color-coded. Why don't you extend the colors to the platforms beneath them? I think that'd be cool. I can see decals that are all just a gray color; you should color code those to match the main bases.
I have no gameplay suggestions though. This map is a solid 4 player rotational map.
This is something I have considered, but desided to keep distinct to the highest level. Thanks for the suggestion anyway, I might change it in the future.
Prime, LG-IM, StarTale, FXOpen, MVP, NSH, Team AZUBU SC2, and Axiom-Acer will participate in the “Heart of the Swarm GSTL Pre-Season.” The game format will be single-elimination tournament, best of 7, all-kill format; all tournaments will be done on the HotS beta server, and the maps are the previously used Akilon Wastes, GSL Bel’shir Vestige SE, GSL Whirlwind Se, GSL Icarus. On top of this, new maps Howling Peak, DF Atlas, and TPW Silver Sands will be used starting with this team league.
On February 12 2013 15:59 Gfire wrote: I think some of the geysers are in a bad spot and require four workers to saturate... I hope that can be adjusted before anything major.
nice catch, I agree some look like they are too diagonal. Anyway, Grats scorp on the addition !
On February 12 2013 15:59 Gfire wrote: I think some of the geysers are in a bad spot and require four workers to saturate... I hope that can be adjusted before anything major.
nice catch, I agree some look like they are too diagonal.
Thanks for the spot guys. We will make sure if there is any error here that needs to be corrected that it is done so. Scorp is on the case!
This map is incredibly rough for zerg, I've found, especially when not cross map. Protoss can attack when it's not cross positions in literally like, ten seconds.
Cross the map seems okay, but non cross it seems a bit too easy to expand towards your opponent. Which is always a problem that rotational maps are going to have. It's easier to not put a base in between both players on a 2 player map or an axially symmetric one.
Truth be told I don't feel non cross rotational symmetry works unless you do it on one of those huge maps or you do it so that you have to go through the centre to go in any direction.
On February 13 2013 08:47 Zennith wrote: This map is incredibly rough for zerg, I've found, especially when not cross map. Protoss can attack when it's not cross positions in literally like, ten seconds.
Well, it's not literally 10 seconds, so what do you mean? The distance is reasonable. Certainly shorter than some of the huuuuuge maps we have now, but not too short as to be unplayable.
Issue isn't distance, the issue is the ease of expanding in your face. Say in mech TvZ if Z spawns CCW to you. I'd take the third closest to Z and then the fourth under his base and park tanks there, what's he going to do against it? Kill me before I get a fourth I suppose. The distance of hopping from one expo to the next is minute and so is the amount of counter attack paths Z can take to stop this. What this map creates in non cross pos is 2 players and a line of expansions almost linearly between them. What you want is force people to go side of each other to some degree to expand. Being able to expand forward to your opponent with each expansion where each expo is very close to the old one is very powerful in mech TvZ and no slouch for certain styles of PvZ either.
Unfortunately, I think the map is broken in close positions once the rocks break. Too easy to expand aggressively, making the distances too short. I think the pathway with rocks just shouldn't exist.
If we're talking about aggressive 4ths, that's quite a stretch from what we've seen players choose to do recently. I assume the discussion is about zerg matchups, in which case the 4th base timing is either too early to be secure if taken towards the opponent, or will happen around the time BLs come out -- also insecure. I understand the appeal for a mech player to get bases where they want their army position anyway, but this also a liability and I think in the highest skill games players will tend to respect this more. Moreover, a counterattack style to respond to this type of play is very underexplored because it rarely comes up, and it's a new metagame with new units, so I think that kind of prognostication is a bit premature.
The thing with removing the rocks and putting a wall or a crevasse in its place is that it becomes a 'STuff must go through the centre' map, making centre control very strong and limiting counter attacks. I mean, imagine the rocks to be walls, then put an army locking of those two chokes in front of the other third and you stop someone from ever leaving their base. In fact, it then becomes impossible to reach any other main from any main by ground without stepping through the one single tower's vision to illustrate the severity of the problem.
I feel the only way to salvage this map is flat out remove the rocks or make them very low hp and make it cross only.
On February 13 2013 11:41 SiskosGoatee wrote: The thing with removing the rocks and putting a wall or a crevasse in its place is that it becomes a 'STuff must go through the centre' map, making centre control very strong and limiting counter attacks. I mean, imagine the rocks to be walls, then put an army locking of those two chokes in front of the other third and you stop someone from ever leaving their base. In fact, it then becomes impossible to reach any other main from any main by ground without stepping through the one single tower's vision to illustrate the severity of the problem.
I feel the only way to salvage this map is flat out remove the rocks or make them very low hp and make it cross only.
What about making the ramp from the natural to the low ground third much skinnier so that you can defend your natural more easily from a forward third, as well as pushing the rocks closer to the low ground third so that they can't be killed from the safety of your high ground? or would this not be enough?
After being gone for months, I returned to say congratulations on getting this map out into the public. At first glance I fell in love with this map and knew it was perfect, then realized later in the thread that it had made the GSTL! Amazing work!
Cross only would absolutely destroy this map, as I've said before, the whole purpose of a 4p map is for the close positions and the varied games that the different positions give, cross only may as well be a 2p map.
I think close positions on this map work really well, the rocks are only there to delay pushes, by which point the terrain provides numerous flanking opportunities and counterattack paths. Anyway, time will tell I guess, congrats on getting it in GSTL and Assembly Scorp :D
On February 13 2013 21:50 OxyGenesis wrote: Cross only would absolutely destroy this map, as I've said before, the whole purpose of a 4p map is for the close positions and the varied games that the different positions give, cross only may as well be a 2p map.
Just making it a 2P map is an even better solution. That said, I'd rather have it cross only than the potential flaws of allowing close.
I think close positions on this map work really well, the rocks are only there to delay pushes, by which point the terrain provides numerous flanking opportunities and counterattack paths. Anyway, time will tell I guess, congrats on getting it in GSTL and Assembly Scorp :D
The Terrain allows exactly one counter attack path which can be walled and is still really close. If T spawns CW to Z and is able to establish the fourth under the base of Z with tanks, it's going tob e rough I feel. But we will see.
On February 13 2013 21:50 OxyGenesis wrote: Cross only would absolutely destroy this map, as I've said before, the whole purpose of a 4p map is for the close positions and the varied games that the different positions give, cross only may as well be a 2p map.
Just making it a 2P map is an even better solution. That said, I'd rather have it cross only than the potential flaws of allowing close.
I think close positions on this map work really well, the rocks are only there to delay pushes, by which point the terrain provides numerous flanking opportunities and counterattack paths. Anyway, time will tell I guess, congrats on getting it in GSTL and Assembly Scorp :D
The Terrain allows exactly one counter attack path which can be walled and is still really close. If T spawns CW to Z and is able to establish the fourth under the base of Z with tanks, it's going tob e rough I feel. But we will see.
Could you explain what you mean with a diagram? Why would Z not just expand away from T?
I don't know why people don't like comic sans, I thinks its cool. Anyways about the map u show, I think the best solution would be to make the base that is near the main to be like on CK, where the minerals looked from the main, this will make it near impossible to mine from there as the Terran. Of course the Zerg should never let the Terran player set up a PF there in the 1st place since the area near the rocks is pretty open and units trying to go through the rocks will most likely get surrounded (or semi surrounded) and taken out.
I think the only thing Z has to stop that fourth PF is creep, they can guard the PF under construction with tanks that also guard their third. We'll see, but I'd put money on it that sooner or later people will either significantly alter some things or make this map cross only. I really don't think it's balanced in its current form.
That will never happen, Siskos. If the terran ever get a pfort up there as their 4th then the zerg deserve to lose. It's all fun to theory craft every single possibility but the chances of a good zerg every allowing a full base to get taken right underneath their main just isn't going to happen. Remember, this is HotS, there will be muta play, viper play, swarm host play, infestor play, hydra play, spinecrawler play and creep spread, a ton of stuff that will be able to push a terran if they decide to expand to that 4th.
Plus, if it's not cross positions maybe this tells the zerg he should try some 2 base all-in. Maybe hit that baneling bust before his mech gets too strong. Maybe go line/bling/muta and destroy the meching terran since he'll have to spread out so much. Just because there's the possibility of 1 thing to happen (which it won't) in close positions isn't enough to force it into cross positions only.
On February 14 2013 01:25 SidianTheBard wrote: That will never happen, Siskos. If the terran ever get a pfort up there as their 4th then the zerg deserve to lose. It's all fun to theory craft every single possibility but the chances of a good zerg every allowing a full base to get taken right underneath their main just isn't going to happen. Remember, this is HotS, there will be muta play, viper play, swarm host play, infestor play, hydra play, spinecrawler play and creep spread, a ton of stuff that will be able to push a terran if they decide to expand to that 4th.
I disagree, it will happen, it's very easy for T to establish that base because it's extremely close to the third of T. You can't just get a PF at that point on CK for instance because it's very far away from your normal third and Z's third is there but if T is pushing Z with mech, then T's army is already there so why not plant a PF there, surely Z doesn't want to take the third towards Z? T would take that route anyway to push Z so why not plant a PF there.
Plus, if it's not cross positions maybe this tells the zerg he should try some 2 base all-in. Maybe hit that baneling bust before his mech gets too strong. Maybe go line/bling/muta and destroy the meching terran since he'll have to spread out so much. Just because there's the possibility of 1 thing to happen (which it won't) in close positions isn't enough to force it into cross positions only.
You could say the same thing about metalopolis close positions. But like I said, we will see. I'm willing to bet money on it that close pos in TvZ will not be balanced.
The map's just kinda small for a 4p map. It is a bit short in close and also lacking in open space. I think it still makes for some fun gameplay overall.
But for a team league, in the pre-season (which should be used to test maps like the Proleague pre-season,) and in HotS where no one knows how anything will play out... I'm not sure it makes sense to complain about anything here. Let's wait and see what happens.
Well, sure you should always wait and see, I'm not advocating that it should be made cross only. However I am saying that my prediction is that they will eventually have to resort to that. I could be wrong, but I'm certain enough of it to bet money on it.
On February 14 2013 01:37 SiskosGoatee wrote: Well, sure you should always wait and see, I'm not advocating that it should be made cross only. However I am saying that my prediction is that they will eventually have to resort to that. I could be wrong, but I'm certain enough of it to bet money on it.
Well, that begs another question... Should we ever be forcing cross or just removing the maps when they get to that point?
I think new maps should be being introduced frequently enough that we can just swap it out with something else in that case.
As I stated on the first page, this is really a style of map that has fallen way out of favor with the advent of cross spawn only. The difference that this map brings is that close spawns has pretty much the least amount of positional imbalance of any map so far. If this map can't work with all spawns, then its pretty safe to say that no map can. I am going to dissent and say that I feel close spawns can and will work here. Players will need to play to the map. If we see a resurgence of older strategies or the creation of new ones then that is a good thing imo. I also feel that its pretty unlikely that a good zerg will put themselves in the above position, I mean 4 base v 4 base in ZvP or ZvT is already a bad sign for the zerg.
It's not even positional imbalance. It works almost as well the other way around. There are just expansions located on the optimal pushing path T takes to Z and that path is largely through chokes with very little open area. It's not an idea balance solution to allow T to push through essentially one giant choke through Z and get an expo in the meanwhile. I refer you back to the original Shakuras plateau. You can also say' Z is pretty bad if they let T take the smilyface base' but let's face it, it's hard to stop because it's as close to the base T took before it as it is to Z. T is about as bad if they let Z stop them from taking it.
Most the maps these days are either forced cross or much bigger than this... Whirlwind is the only 4p map with all spawns in the main pools these days.
The only good example I can think of is HotS Star Station, which I think is being used with all spawns possible for MLG. But there's only been one game on it since their map pool is huge (I guess pre-season sort of thing where they will narrow down the maps.)
I think it is a reasonable argument against close spawns since it really isn't any good counter-example... I can't confidently predict that there wouldn't be issues.
I'd say close spawns star station arguably has issues. I wouldn't be surprised if it was disabled at some point.
But yeah, it's hard to enable all spawns on a map this size. A way to do it is to increase the rush distance by forcing all things to go through the centre like Crevasse and Terminus did, but that forces everything through the centre.
This was something that was discussed extensively internally. The pickup of the map by major tournaments may yield negative results that force minor edits to be made and/or replacement maps made/found. Than again, the results may not. We shall see and are eager to gain more information (not theorycraft) about the map at this time.
I don't see T ever taking that base Sisko, you need to build the CC, clear the creep, move and land the cc and then morph it in to a PF without Z attacking at all for it to work, it's just way too close to the Z main. If Z ever lets that happen then they deserve to lose like Sidian said.
Close spawns on Star Station is a bit different as it's a mirrored not rotational so it doesn't have quite the same dynamics. I think the close spawns on SS could be pretty rough for Z but on Atlas with the rocks and the choosable 3rds it's much better. If that bet is still on Sisko, I would gladly take it as I don't think the issue you describe will be game breaking. That said, I won't rule out the possibility that somewhere along the line close positions being found as slightly imbalanced, it's just the asymmetrical nature of rotational maps. I think if a map is figured out enough for close spawns to be found imbalanced then it's time for the map to be removed from the pool, forcing cross positions is an ugly fix and the fact that it has been used in the past is just symptomatic of the dire state of WoL mapping.
On February 14 2013 03:06 OxyGenesis wrote: I don't see T ever taking that base Sisko, you need to build the CC, clear the creep, move and land the cc and then morph it in to a PF without Z attacking at all for it to work, it's just way too close to the Z main. If Z ever lets that happen then they deserve to lose like Sidian said.
Yes, and you want it to be close to their main. What can Z honestly do about it? If they could stop you from taking that third they have the capacity to attack your third and kill you. If Z can stop you from taking that fourth, the next step is Z being able to stop you from taking your own third which is an inch away.
Close spawns on Star Station is a bit different as it's a mirrored not rotational so it doesn't have quite the same dynamics. I think the close spawns on SS could be pretty rough for Z but on Atlas with the rocks and the choosable 3rds it's much better. If that bet is still on Sisko, I would gladly take it as I don't think the issue you describe will be game breaking. That said, I won't rule out the possibility that somewhere along the line close positions being found as slightly imbalanced, it's just the asymmetrical nature of rotational maps. I think if a map is figured out enough for close spawns to be found imbalanced then it's time for the map to be removed from the pool, forcing cross positions is an ugly fix and the fact that it has been used in the past is just symptomatic of the dire state of WoL mapping.
Well, I'd bet, but the point is that this bet is flawed because you never win. It's like betting one 'man will one day set foot on Mars'. If you bet in favour you can't ever lose because you can always say 'it hasn't happened yet' right, we need to establish a timeframe wherein this imbalance becomes apparent or not? Any case, name your time, I'm willing to put 50 eur down on this for good sport.
And I don't think the issue is radial symmetry, the issue is complete lack of openness. The map gives T a single path to push to Z where Z has no single chance of flanking T, on top of that, there are expansions on that path T can take as they push through it.
I actually felt like quantifying this issue a little since I apparently like fancy kindergarten graphics:
The issue of the contested base that T can secure that is close to Z is 'how far can it be away from T's third/natural'. The closer it lies to it the more it just becomes 'the same base', in this case they are very close, which means that it is only marginally easier for Z to deny that fourth as it is to deny T's very own third. THe thing with most maps is that they are so far away from each other that it is so much easier for Z to deny such a base that it becomes unrealistic to take it. Of course there is a certain subjective value of distance where this becomes an issue but I feel this map crosses it, the bases are so close together that if there existed an easy way for Z to deny that fourth (there is no BW high ground advantage, let's not forget, also, locusts do not fly). That easy way could also be used to deny T's third or even their natural.
I think hive timing is something that might be important w/ regards to this. Broodlords on the highground could probably deny that base reasonably well - assuming they're out in time. I can see a few other scenarios where you might be able to stop it.. but I agree it might be an issue. We'll see.
By the time a meching terran is looking to take a 4th, the zerg should already have 4 bases, if not more. Most zergs, when they see mech will mass expand all over the map because if the terran tries to kill those bases then their slow army will be out of position. If zerg is on 4 base, you're looking at hive tech. You're looking at brood lords, ultras, vipers, infestors, mass spinecrawlers, swarm hosts, just about everything is about to defend well enough that it won't be a problem.
Plus if terran are able to take that base as their 4th, they'll then have to commit to taking control of the high ground behind it (aka the zerg main) or else pretty much every ranged unit the zerg has will be able to harass the worker line making the base useless anyway.
It'll be a great angle for a meching terran to push through, yes, but being worried that they will take that as their 4th base and that's the main reason it's going to be imbalanced TvZ is laughable.
On February 14 2013 06:59 SidianTheBard wrote: By the time a meching terran is looking to take a 4th, the zerg should already have 4 bases, if not more. Most zergs, when they see mech will mass expand all over the map because if the terran tries to kill those bases then their slow army will be out of position. If zerg is on 4 base, you're looking at hive tech. You're looking at brood lords, ultras, vipers, infestors, mass spinecrawlers, swarm hosts, just about everything is about to defend well enough that it won't be a problem.
Ah yes, I guess that makes clos pos antiga not a problem. After all, the moment T secures the gold ridiculously close to Z they are on four bases and ...
Plus if terran are able to take that base as their 4th, they'll then have to commit to taking control of the high ground behind it (aka the zerg main) or else pretty much every ranged unit the zerg has will be able to harass the worker line making the base useless anyway.
You mean putting tanks in the vicinity and using whatever you want for air vision?
It'll be a great angle for a meching terran to push through, yes, but being worried that they will take that as their 4th base and that's the main reason it's going to be imbalanced TvZ is laughable.
No it's a very legitimate concern because the layout towards it uncannily favours Terran. There is no open space for one. Z absolutely cannot deny comfortably T from taking that fourth. If they have the capacity to stop T if they get it is another issue and even that is in dispute because it's much harder to mass expand and drone if Terran is a stone's throw away from you.
I mean, would anyone agree with this modification of Newkirk:
Because this is essentially what you are looking at. Z is still free to expand away from T because it's still newkirk at the top.
Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Nope, the rush distances are actually very similar. This is actually how close the centre of both bases are on that map. I should've added rocks in between both to make it complete of course so imagine they are there. But this is actually more or less what you are looking at on that map and that you think this is so much more horrible shows you're fooled by the optical ilussion. To make it more complete I probably should've left the a hole in the high ground pod though.
something similar to Atlas was released without the capacity for cross I'm pretty sure no one would take it. Or imagine an axial version of Atlas so turned that the thirds below the bases face each other in the same way my newkirk edit does and it has the exact same distances there as Atlas, no one would ever accept that. It just doesn't appear as bad because of the rotational symmetry.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
The bet you made wasn't that close spawns were imbalanced but for the specific issue of taking a close 4th as T against Z. But like you said, I wouldn't take the bet anyway as I'm not going to wait the entire lifetime of the map to get paid
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
Ah, okay, so what you are basically saying is that high master and GM players feel is that I was completely right in everything I said and my graphics exactly illustrate and detail the situation and that they should crown me queen bitch of the universe for being so right?
Just say it, I'll always remain normal and plain nontwithstanding the fame, money, fast cars and beautiful women.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
Who are the zergs on your team?
Well, I don't want to speak for them, so I'll let them post here themselves if they like. But as a high masters zerg myself (was rank 270 in NA last season according to sc2ranks), I've had pretty much the same experience. Cross spawns this map is really fun to play on, if a little small. Close positions the map against a protoss or terran can be really difficult to manage. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a Zerg to win close positions, just as it was possible on Entombed or Antiga, but it's far more difficult for the zerg player than the other races. I mean, if you take a look at the map design, the fact is that while it's very unlikely for a terran player to take the potential zerg third as a fourth (although they conceivably could), they don't really have to.
The layout of the terrain in close positions makes it so that the terran player (or protoss) never has to move out on to the map, they never have to move into territory that could be considered "open". As a result, pushes like the immortal sentry all in are incredibly strong, as for the zerg to get a surround, the protoss would have to be quite careless. If they just edge along the walls and break down the rocks, then they're right below the Zerg's Main. I've seen some incredibly strong elevator play there as well, and when the immortal sentry push has gotten that close without being deterred, it is literally impossible to stop. Sure, the zerg player could do some sort of wacky all in, but you can't base a map's quality on a zerg player's ability to all in.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
Who are the zergs on your team?
Well, I don't want to speak for them, so I'll let them post here themselves if they like. But as a high masters zerg myself (was rank 270 in NA last season according to sc2ranks), I've had pretty much the same experience. Cross spawns this map is really fun to play on, if a little small. Close positions the map against a protoss or terran can be really difficult to manage. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a Zerg to win close positions, just as it was possible on Entombed or Antiga, but it's far more difficult for the zerg player than the other races. I mean, if you take a look at the map design, the fact is that while it's very unlikely for a terran player to take the potential zerg third as a fourth (although they conceivably could), they don't really have to.
The layout of the terrain in close positions makes it so that the terran player (or protoss) never has to move out on to the map, they never have to move into territory that could be considered "open". As a result, pushes like the immortal sentry all in are incredibly strong, as for the zerg to get a surround, the protoss would have to be quite careless. If they just edge along the walls and break down the rocks, then they're right below the Zerg's Main. I've seen some incredibly strong elevator play there as well, and when the immortal sentry push has gotten that close without being deterred, it is literally impossible to stop. Sure, the zerg player could do some sort of wacky all in, but you can't base a map's quality on a zerg player's ability to all in.
Would you say that it is innapropriate for the format you are preparing to compete in (teams) for this map to be used in its current condition, or is it simply a matter of the map is disfavorable to zergs in close position?
The follow up question of course is than: should all maps for all types of leagues attempt to be completely balanced for the professional level play? (This does impose increased limitations to mapmaking so it is important)
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
Who are the zergs on your team?
Well, I don't want to speak for them, so I'll let them post here themselves if they like. But as a high masters zerg myself (was rank 270 in NA last season according to sc2ranks), I've had pretty much the same experience. Cross spawns this map is really fun to play on, if a little small. Close positions the map against a protoss or terran can be really difficult to manage. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a Zerg to win close positions, just as it was possible on Entombed or Antiga, but it's far more difficult for the zerg player than the other races. I mean, if you take a look at the map design, the fact is that while it's very unlikely for a terran player to take the potential zerg third as a fourth (although they conceivably could), they don't really have to.
The layout of the terrain in close positions makes it so that the terran player (or protoss) never has to move out on to the map, they never have to move into territory that could be considered "open". As a result, pushes like the immortal sentry all in are incredibly strong, as for the zerg to get a surround, the protoss would have to be quite careless. If they just edge along the walls and break down the rocks, then they're right below the Zerg's Main. I've seen some incredibly strong elevator play there as well, and when the immortal sentry push has gotten that close without being deterred, it is literally impossible to stop. Sure, the zerg player could do some sort of wacky all in, but you can't base a map's quality on a zerg player's ability to all in.
Thanks for reply. Discarding the immo-sentry thing which is a metagame/balance problem, I am wondering what zergs have been doing against turtle terrans in adjacent spawns. I hope we get to see some demonstrative games, at least for the curiosity of this short remaining time in WoL.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
Who are the zergs on your team?
Well, I don't want to speak for them, so I'll let them post here themselves if they like. But as a high masters zerg myself (was rank 270 in NA last season according to sc2ranks), I've had pretty much the same experience. Cross spawns this map is really fun to play on, if a little small. Close positions the map against a protoss or terran can be really difficult to manage. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a Zerg to win close positions, just as it was possible on Entombed or Antiga, but it's far more difficult for the zerg player than the other races. I mean, if you take a look at the map design, the fact is that while it's very unlikely for a terran player to take the potential zerg third as a fourth (although they conceivably could), they don't really have to.
The layout of the terrain in close positions makes it so that the terran player (or protoss) never has to move out on to the map, they never have to move into territory that could be considered "open". As a result, pushes like the immortal sentry all in are incredibly strong, as for the zerg to get a surround, the protoss would have to be quite careless. If they just edge along the walls and break down the rocks, then they're right below the Zerg's Main. I've seen some incredibly strong elevator play there as well, and when the immortal sentry push has gotten that close without being deterred, it is literally impossible to stop. Sure, the zerg player could do some sort of wacky all in, but you can't base a map's quality on a zerg player's ability to all in.
Thanks for reply. Discarding the immo-sentry thing which is a metagame/balance problem, I am wondering what zergs have been doing against turtle terrans in adjacent spawns. I hope we get to see some demonstrative games, at least for the curiosity of this short remaining time in WoL.
I'll ask around about the meching terran. I've had one or two games against that style on the map, but not enough to be conclusive.
In any case, I really think you're wrong when you talk about Immortal Sentry as a balance/metagame problem. It's more of a map issue, in my mind. Even on Ohana (which is by far one of the strongest maps for the build), if you have the lings out at the protoss base when they push with the build, you can delay delay delay and then hold off the push. The problem is, on this map, the protoss NEVER has to enter open ground, even as they do on Ohana. The protoss can always hug the walls, and it greatly reduces the number of forcefields the protoss needs to use to defend the initial ling harass, which makes the push itself much, much more potent (not that the build needs the help). I've yet to see someone defend the build on Atlas, whereas by this point, most zerg players at least have a good chance to defend it on all of the popular ladder and tournament maps at the moment (yes, even ohana).
Amazing map! I can not wait to watch GSTL for this. I enjoy Sacred Sands, so I have high hopes.
Would you be willing to let me use it for my SC2 melee mod? SC2Pro Mod http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=398491 I would need a few changes to it, though. Namely, 9 minerals per main, 7 per natural, and 8 for the rest, as well as only 1 geyser per base. I can make those changes myself, of course.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
Who are the zergs on your team?
Well, I don't want to speak for them, so I'll let them post here themselves if they like. But as a high masters zerg myself (was rank 270 in NA last season according to sc2ranks), I've had pretty much the same experience. Cross spawns this map is really fun to play on, if a little small. Close positions the map against a protoss or terran can be really difficult to manage. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a Zerg to win close positions, just as it was possible on Entombed or Antiga, but it's far more difficult for the zerg player than the other races. I mean, if you take a look at the map design, the fact is that while it's very unlikely for a terran player to take the potential zerg third as a fourth (although they conceivably could), they don't really have to.
The layout of the terrain in close positions makes it so that the terran player (or protoss) never has to move out on to the map, they never have to move into territory that could be considered "open". As a result, pushes like the immortal sentry all in are incredibly strong, as for the zerg to get a surround, the protoss would have to be quite careless. If they just edge along the walls and break down the rocks, then they're right below the Zerg's Main. I've seen some incredibly strong elevator play there as well, and when the immortal sentry push has gotten that close without being deterred, it is literally impossible to stop. Sure, the zerg player could do some sort of wacky all in, but you can't base a map's quality on a zerg player's ability to all in.
Thanks for reply. Discarding the immo-sentry thing which is a metagame/balance problem, I am wondering what zergs have been doing against turtle terrans in adjacent spawns. I hope we get to see some demonstrative games, at least for the curiosity of this short remaining time in WoL.
I'll ask around about the meching terran. I've had one or two games against that style on the map, but not enough to be conclusive.
In any case, I really think you're wrong when you talk about Immortal Sentry as a balance/metagame problem. It's more of a map issue, in my mind. Even on Ohana (which is by far one of the strongest maps for the build), if you have the lings out at the protoss base when they push with the build, you can delay delay delay and then hold off the push. The problem is, on this map, the protoss NEVER has to enter open ground, even as they do on Ohana. The protoss can always hug the walls, and it greatly reduces the number of forcefields the protoss needs to use to defend the initial ling harass, which makes the push itself much, much more potent (not that the build needs the help). I've yet to see someone defend the build on Atlas, whereas by this point, most zerg players at least have a good chance to defend it on all of the popular ladder and tournament maps at the moment (yes, even ohana).
Oh I agree about the potency of immortal sentry on this map, where it must be stronger than usual; I meant that as a soon-to-be HotS map there's more leeway for trying things that don't work in WoL. The tank push issue seems more permanent than immortal sentry which might be a dead strategy, though maybe not. I also wonder if there's something zergs haven't discovered yet in WoL for defeating immo sentry, independent of map considerations. Although to be sure, increasing push distance and requiring passage through open areas can improve zergs chances, which would otherwise be a pressing consideration.
On February 14 2013 09:15 moskonia wrote: Are you kidding me? This is nothing alike, the map still has decent rush distance and while the 3rd and the 4th are close, there is still a distance between them. I am not saying that the map wouldn't be problematic, but its really not as horrible as you make it to be.
EDIT: You should really let this map play out a bit before "killing it", because I think pro Zerg players will be able to deal with this situation better than you might know.
Having played this map extensively in prep for IPTL, I have to thoroughly disagree. I've decided we will NEVER throw a zerg on this map, because it's incredibly rough in close positions against either race.
You're a pro or something similar or a coach for a team in IPTL?
In which case I can smell that sweet delicious 50 EUR.
Hah, no, our team is made of high masters and some grandmasters players - we're in the IPTL Amateur Bracket (and have made it past the first round, which is always nice) - but the point was, we've had good reason to practice this map a lot, as it is in the map pool for IPTL. It's incredibly easy for a meching terran to abuse the terrain, and in close positions, builds like the immortal sentry all in are absolutely impossible to stop due to the lack of space and flanking ability, and the fact that delaying the push with speedlings as one would want to do is very, very hard to pull off on this map.
Who are the zergs on your team?
Well, I don't want to speak for them, so I'll let them post here themselves if they like. But as a high masters zerg myself (was rank 270 in NA last season according to sc2ranks), I've had pretty much the same experience. Cross spawns this map is really fun to play on, if a little small. Close positions the map against a protoss or terran can be really difficult to manage. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a Zerg to win close positions, just as it was possible on Entombed or Antiga, but it's far more difficult for the zerg player than the other races. I mean, if you take a look at the map design, the fact is that while it's very unlikely for a terran player to take the potential zerg third as a fourth (although they conceivably could), they don't really have to.
The layout of the terrain in close positions makes it so that the terran player (or protoss) never has to move out on to the map, they never have to move into territory that could be considered "open". As a result, pushes like the immortal sentry all in are incredibly strong, as for the zerg to get a surround, the protoss would have to be quite careless. If they just edge along the walls and break down the rocks, then they're right below the Zerg's Main. I've seen some incredibly strong elevator play there as well, and when the immortal sentry push has gotten that close without being deterred, it is literally impossible to stop. Sure, the zerg player could do some sort of wacky all in, but you can't base a map's quality on a zerg player's ability to all in.
Thanks for reply. Discarding the immo-sentry thing which is a metagame/balance problem, I am wondering what zergs have been doing against turtle terrans in adjacent spawns. I hope we get to see some demonstrative games, at least for the curiosity of this short remaining time in WoL.
I'll ask around about the meching terran. I've had one or two games against that style on the map, but not enough to be conclusive.
In any case, I really think you're wrong when you talk about Immortal Sentry as a balance/metagame problem. It's more of a map issue, in my mind. Even on Ohana (which is by far one of the strongest maps for the build), if you have the lings out at the protoss base when they push with the build, you can delay delay delay and then hold off the push. The problem is, on this map, the protoss NEVER has to enter open ground, even as they do on Ohana. The protoss can always hug the walls, and it greatly reduces the number of forcefields the protoss needs to use to defend the initial ling harass, which makes the push itself much, much more potent (not that the build needs the help). I've yet to see someone defend the build on Atlas, whereas by this point, most zerg players at least have a good chance to defend it on all of the popular ladder and tournament maps at the moment (yes, even ohana).
I don't think you can remove any of the variables (metagame, map, balance,) so it's impossible to say it is a problem with one of those things. You can only show it's a problem with a specific combination of those things. But where does that leave us?
I feel that maps should be a last resort to fixing game problems. Specific things like Immortal Sentry, I mean. Since the balance and metagame are still changing a lot (especially in hots,) we have the opportunity to not restrict our maps for the sake of specific issues. Just because a problem can be fixed with maps, that doesn't mean that's the best way to do it...
Only if the metagame/balance refuses to change should we eliminate entire styles of maps to deal with a build like that. Unlike BW we should not be forced into this situation, although we naively did try to fix problems in WoL and the game suffered for it, especially in ZvP.
This is my view on it at this point in time... I think it can work because it's HotS and Blizzard will be willing to admit there could be problems, and they certainly won't blame the maps for anything, so as long as the map makers and tournament organizers just give it time when there's an issue and let Blizz do their job all will be well, right? This is the one thing that the experience of the Korean scene has actually hurt in... because they are used to balancing the game with maps as in BW, and since Blizzard is slower in fixing problems on their own, we ended up with a game where the maps were relied on for balance and thus all the maps ended up being very similar, and then when we started seeing balance issues that couldn't be solved with maps (BL/Infestor) the game kinda fell apart. Also since we would fix a specific problem in one matchup with the maps, then the other matchups would become more stagnant because of it even if they would be playable on other maps.
This is my theory anyway. Considering this and the generally optimistic conclusions I'm coming to these days, aside from hellbats, I'm pretty satisfied with this map getting in... We'll see how it goes.
(Not that I regret the whole WoL experience... Very good learning experience and also much of what happened in map changes were needed for the game to grow, mostly with the 2011 macro-maps which actually allowed more than a few bases, and focused on more overall issues with gameplay. Later on when we started dealing with Stephano max roach styles with maps it kinda went down hill.)
Well, I played this map a couple of times now. I don't think you people fully realize the magnitude of the strength of these strategies. This is beyond close position shattered temple. It just feels like there's absolutely nothing you can do. Not even the immortal sentries. Just in general if P/T takes that base and expands towards you. There is so much pressure on you.
That bet is still on in either case. This map will either be removed or forced cross sooner or later 100%. I wouldn't be surprised if GSL already made it cross. This map without cross is significantly more broken than antiga without cross in my opinion.
It's not just specific strats, it's specific matchups. With close enabled this map will show dismal winrate.
The zerg players saying it's extremely hard to play on this map is a fair point, but have any of you tried to take far away bases like a zerg would do on fighting spirit?
If you were to take the cross third away from that player as your third or even quick fourth base, how exactly are they going to pressure it without having to send quite a lot of units as you have the mobility advantage? Especially when they're going mech.
On February 16 2013 20:52 Qikz wrote: The zerg players saying it's extremely hard to play on this map is a fair point, but have any of you tried to take far away bases like a zerg would do on fighting spirit?
If you were to take the cross third away from that player as your third or even quick fourth base, how exactly are they going to pressure it without having to send quite a lot of units as you have the mobility advantage? Especially when they're going mech.
It's not pressuring the third that is a problem, it's pressuring the nat.
As we said. T/P can can arrive at Z's nat without going through open space once on this map in close pos and counter attacks are also very hard to pull off, on top of this, there are expansions located on that path.
While not conclusive, the fact that JKS decided to one base baneling Byun blindly on Atlas does speak for that Zergs do not want to play a game beyond a single base on this map against Terran.
I'd not want to play a ZvT or ZvP on that map. In cross it's some-what okay. But close, you really feel like there's absolutely nothing you can do. This isn't like Antiga close where you feel like 'Okay, it's hard, but I can do this' and if you lost 'Okay, I felt I could've done this and this better'. losing to an immortal/sentry on this map feels like 'I have nfc what I could've done to stop this. It's just not possible.'
The map also from my experience is P favoured in TvP. P can get up 3 bases in any position without T being able to offer much contest. There's of course also the thing that I went 9-2 versus timetwister I believe in TvP. Lost 1 to a 4gate which snuck a pylon into my base and I lost on this map as well. I admit that I wasn't taking him as seriously as I should at the start but it does say something that this was the only macro game I lost while I quite handily won the other macro game where I was also doing some-what bizarre things and wasn't thinking well from time to time. Apart from that, I played some other TvP's on this map and never won one against players I'm usually even enough against. It does feel quite hard to pressure P on 3 bases.
But again, we will see, but if anyone is up for it, that 50 EUR is still down.
I think you guys are over thinking this way too much. Its not too strange to see Koreans all in on a map which they may have practiced on only a couple times. Also this being HoTS and Zergs not having much success lately this would only encourage someone to all-in. I have played around 10-ish games on this map over the course of the beta, and I have had no trouble with the middle of the map. And won almost all of those games.
Anyway Siskos you especially are jumping to alot of conclusions, and saying that this map is worse then Antiga close boggles my mind.
How can I not jump to conclusions when I have 50 EUR on the table no is seems willing to pick up?
Anyway, the primary reason that I think this map in close is hard for Z is because I played on it as Z and it felt like there was nothing I could do. Antiga still gives you surface area, this map doesn't. To say it boggles your mind that this map si worse than Antiga in close is just your average trendy anti Blizzard biasjerk. The primary things with Antiga in close position was the distance and how close your third is to his main by air or vice versa. That's manageable, the fact that they can push you without ever venturing into open space on this map is not and if this map was made by Blizzard everyone would take a turn relieving their proverbial bowels on it and demanding cross only.
On February 18 2013 06:07 Veloh15 wrote: I think you guys are over thinking this way too much. Its not too strange to see Koreans all in on a map which they may have practiced on only a couple times. Also this being HoTS and Zergs not having much success lately this would only encourage someone to all-in. I have played around 10-ish games on this map over the course of the beta, and I have had no trouble with the middle of the map. And won almost all of those games.
Anyway Siskos you especially are jumping to alot of conclusions, and saying that this map is worse then Antiga close boggles my mind.
The point isn't the middle of the map at all - the point is that in close positions, terran and protoss players can push without ever needing to cross the middle or any open ground at all. What race/level are you?
Oh no, that's not what I mean. I mean I should continue to make my case because I might lose 50 if I don't. I mean I'm obviously quite invested in this issue since I have money and honour on the line. Which I seldom do.
Besides, people pleading the fifth have nothing to lose. The fifth is designed to have people nothing to lose should they shut up even if they are innocent, the thing is that in this case, there's 50 EUR up for grabs if you're innocent and speak out.
On February 18 2013 07:47 SiskosGoatee wrote: Besides, people pleading the fifth have nothing to lose. The fifth is designed to have people nothing to lose should they shut up even if they are innocent, the thing is that in this case, there's 50 EUR up for grabs if you're innocent and speak out.
Wrong! The fifth is a legal protection interpreted by SCOTUS granted by the US Constitution to protect against self-incrimination. Guilt/innocence is irrelevant as it is a right executed prior to the majority of legal proceedings in a criminal case. To say that those persons pleading the fifth have nothing to lose is an incredibly naive view of this right. It's intention is to grant due process by the criminal justice system, protecting persons charged with a crime from self incrimination until they have spoken with an attorney. It is part of the Miranda rights. And guess what? There are limitations on it as well.
On February 18 2013 07:47 SiskosGoatee wrote: Besides, people pleading the fifth have nothing to lose. The fifth is designed to have people nothing to lose should they shut up even if they are innocent, the thing is that in this case, there's 50 EUR up for grabs if you're innocent and speak out.
Wrong! The fifth is a legal protection interpreted by SCOTUS granted by the US Constitution to protect against self-incrimination. Guilt/innocence is irrelevant as it is a right executed prior to the majority of legal proceedings in a criminal case. To say that those persons pleading the fifth have nothing to lose is an incredibly naive view of this right. It's intention is to grant due process by the criminal justice system, protecting persons charged with a crime from self incrimination until they have spoken with an attorney. It is part of the Miranda rights. And guess what? There are limitations on it as well.
Yeah, so they still have nothing to lose. People arresting them must instruct them of their right to remain silent and a jury cannot hold it against the defended to not testify or say anything at all (in theory, but meh, Jury trials..)
The point is that even if you are guilty and you know you're guilty, it's still better to say nothing at all. In this case, if you are right and you know you are right, you can earn 50 EUR. Therefore you can't hold it against someone who pleads the fifth because even if they are guilty, it's still the best thing to do. In this case not so much, you could earn something if you do speak up.
The point isn't the middle of the map at all - the point is that in close positions, terran and protoss players can push without ever needing to cross the middle or any open ground at all. What race/level are you?
I am a diamond level Zerg, but asking for league is kinda elitist especially when discussing concepts. If you look at the 2 base attack paths they are actually very similar. Although Atlas does seem more chokey there is still one almost unblockable counter attack path and one which is blockable. It is also important to note that on Antiga the distances are much shorter for the push to reach a base. Both also have points where a Zerg can force out force fields, or what have you, vs an Immortal all in. The biggest difference between the two is that on Antiga an aggressor can plow through the 3rd and walk into the natural relatively safely. But I don't think that is really what you guys were complaining about. In a situation where a Protoss is doing a 3 base all in or a Terran is doing a maxed Terran mech push things do get hairy. But still I don't see this being really imbalanced for those pushes. Although the distance is shorter for the Atlas push the point where an engagement will happen is much closer to the defender's bases, and not in the shadow of the aggressor's main. But what I think is Atlas's saving grace is that the attacker will have to walk up that tight ramp where I think a strong defense can be made. Obviously this would be one of the strongest pushes on this map but I hardly think it would break the map. That conclusion is completely unfounded.
Veloh why compare antiga close spawns? Its not used in the competitive play for quite some time now, you should use current maps if you want to make a point about map balance.
On February 18 2013 11:17 moskonia wrote: Veloh why compare antiga close spawns? Its not used in the competitive play for quite some time now, you should use current maps if you want to make a point about map balance.
Siskos was claiming that Antiga close was better than Atlas close just trying to make a point
The point isn't the middle of the map at all - the point is that in close positions, terran and protoss players can push without ever needing to cross the middle or any open ground at all. What race/level are you?
I am a diamond level Zerg, but asking for league is kinda elitist especially when discussing concepts. If you look at the 2 base attack paths they are actually very similar. Although Atlas does seem more chokey there is still one almost unblockable counter attack path and one which is blockable. It is also important to note that on Antiga the distances are much shorter for the push to reach a base. Both also have points where a Zerg can force out force fields, or what have you, vs an Immortal all in. The biggest difference between the two is that on Antiga an aggressor can plow through the 3rd and walk into the natural relatively safely. But I don't think that is really what you guys were complaining about. In a situation where a Protoss is doing a 3 base all in or a Terran is doing a maxed Terran mech push things do get hairy. But still I don't see this being really imbalanced for those pushes. Although the distance is shorter for the Atlas push the point where an engagement will happen is much closer to the defender's bases, and not in the shadow of the aggressor's main. But what I think is Atlas's saving grace is that the attacker will have to walk up that tight ramp where I think a strong defense can be made. Obviously this would be one of the strongest pushes on this map but I hardly think it would break the map. That conclusion is completely unfounded.
No, it's not similar, look at the red line and look how much of it is through open space, at best P can hug a single wall. On Atlas, P warlks through a corridor except that path just after the rocks, and even that part only gives you around 210 degrees surface area on P. P has to constantly venture into the open on Antiga to push Z. On Atlas not so much, it's corridor after corridor.
On February 18 2013 11:17 moskonia wrote: Veloh why compare antiga close spawns? Its not used in the competitive play for quite some time now, you should use current maps if you want to make a point about map balance.
Because I made the comparison and argued that close pos on this map is worse for Z than on Antiga and asserted that people who think otherwise are just paort of the anti Blizzard biasjerk.
Anyway Siskos you especially are jumping to alot of conclusions, and saying that this map is worse then Antiga close boggles my mind.
I have to agree with this, you are complaining about a hell of a lot of nothing.
Stating there are no areas that are open enough for Zerg to engage is just outright crap. If you are playing zerg, abuse your mobility and get flanks like you are bloody supopsed to. There are multiple spots in close positions where this is very easily possible. Stop asking to be coddled by the maps because you are too lazy to play your race properly. Since you are fond of pictures (lol at that idiotic comparison to Newkirk with half the middle taken out, seriously?) I will paint one for you, and mind the shitty paint, I am at work...
As you should be able to see there are three very clear spots where the defendign zerg and set up for a flank, and these arent the only spots nor probably the best.
Anyway Siskos you especially are jumping to alot of conclusions, and saying that this map is worse then Antiga close boggles my mind.
I have to agree with this, you are complaining about a hell of a lot of nothing.
Stating there are no areas that are open enough for Zerg to engage is just outright crap. If you are playing zerg, abuse your mobility and get flanks like you are bloody supopsed to. There are multiple spots in close positions where this is very easily possible. Stop asking to be coddled by the maps because you are too lazy to play your race properly. Since you are fond of pictures (lol at that idiotic comparison to Newkirk with half the middle taken out, seriously?) I will paint one for you, and mind the shitty paint, I am at work...
As you should be able to see there are three very clear spots where the defendign zerg and set up for a flank, and these arent the only spots nor probably the best.
That's nice pumpkin, but the discussion was about when P/T break down the rocks and take the attack path through the chokes. Which you would've known if you read more than a single word of the discussion. Veloh also understands this just fine because he or she at least reads what's being said.
Yeah, and actually, honest to god, rank is important when discussing this. You can't argue about whether or not it is possible to defend a high level immortal sentry on this map if you're incapable of defending against it anywhere else. Also, I have to agree with Siskos' rebuttal.
Oh yeah great arguement. I can read fine, thank you. If they're breaking the rocks (which takes a while to do) and the zerg is atleast half competent in scouting they can get in position WELL before-hand. Hell, alot of terrans breaking rocks will do so with unsieged tanks because siege mode does lower single-target dps to the rocks, thats also a moment of weakness to exploit.
Just because its a slight choke doesnt mean its a nightmare for zerg. My point still applies, just flank pumpkin.
Oh and if I'm not mistaken, this area at the third is quite open for engagement...
As far as I'm concerned, and im sure others will agree, the only arguement you can legitimately make is the shorter distance gives the zerg less time to react. But continue to argue away if you like. I've chimed in with my two cents, enjoy your day.
Edit:
On February 18 2013 12:22 Zennith wrote: Yeah, and actually, honest to god, rank is important when discussing this. You can't argue about whether or not it is possible to defend a high level immortal sentry on this map if you're incapable of defending against it anywhere else. Also, I have to agree with Siskos' rebuttal.
Rank really doesn't mean shit in a discussion. Anyone can understand how to defend an immortal sentry allin even if they are unable to replicate it in their own play.
Well, while someone who is higher rank doesn't automatically have a good opinion on balance (IdrA), it is unlikely that someone of a lower rank can speak of the effectiveness of strategies on a higher rank.
That said, it wasn't a rebuttal, a rebuttal implies I invalidated his argument, I didn't, technically, his argument is solid and I even agree. He was just arguing something that was never in dispute, no one is denying that this push can be stopped if it goes through the centre. People are debating if it can be stopped well if it goes around the edges.
On February 18 2013 12:22 Zennith wrote: Yeah, and actually, honest to god, rank is important when discussing this. You can't argue about whether or not it is possible to defend a high level immortal sentry on this map if you're incapable of defending against it anywhere else. Also, I have to agree with Siskos' rebuttal.
Rank really doesn't mean shit in a discussion. Anyone can understand how to defend an immortal sentry allin even if they are unable to replicate it in their own play.
I'm sorry, but looking at how you adjusted your arrows you have no clue how to defend a high master sentry/immortal all in. That stuff you drew there will never fly. THere is no way to ever flank that, 2 forcefields on that ramp stop you and make you donate half of your army against a decent protoss player with half of those forcefields. You don't have a clue of what you're talking about. You're seriously telling a 1300+ point master Zerg and a 1200+ point master random that we need to learn how to play? Zenith is a coach for a semipro team competing in IPTL telling you that the entire team pretty much feels this map is imbalanced and you're argument is 'You need to learn how to use your race'? The sheer hubris.
I wasn't telling Zennith anything of the sort, that part was directed at you.
You see pro zergs bait forcefields without losing half their army all the time in all kinds of situations, and in this case if they forcefield that ramp they just delayed their push for an entire forcefield duration. Having said that, the majority of my arguement was based on a TvZ push rather than an immortal sentry allin, and the only reason i mentioned that strategy was because Zennith was using it in his arguement about lower leagues joining in discussion.
Actually SiskosGoatee I would be interested if you could be able to draw out the attack paths and where you are seeing the lack of surface area. If a map has surface area in even just one spot a Zerg can engage there. I agree with you that there can be strong pushes, but I see no evidence that supports your claims. Its one thing to say you think something is strong, and it is another to bet that someone's map will fail on the thread that is advertising it, and it another thing completely to vocally support these claims with little to no substantial evidence. So if you could provide some replays or even put in as much effort as me or eTcetRa in demonstrating what you are saying would be really helpful.
On February 18 2013 13:09 eTcetRa wrote: I wasn't telling Zennith anything of the sort, that part was directed at you.
You see pro zergs bait forcefields without losing half their army all the time in all kinds of situations, and in this case if they forcefield that ramp they just delayed their push for an entire forcefield duration.
No they haven't the ramp of which I spoke they don't even need to cross, it's a flanking path.
Having said that, the majority of my arguement was based on a TvZ push rather than an immortal sentry allin, and the only reason i mentioned that strategy was because Zennith was using it in his arguement about lower leagues joining in discussion.
Even so, the flanking paths you suggest for that are huge chokes and/or completely implausible. Your best bet is a wide arc at the other end of the rocks. If you honestly believe in the plausibility of the flanking paths you illustrated you deliver naught but evidence for Zennith's case about skill level (one I don't necessarily agree with in full).
On February 18 2013 12:22 Zennith wrote: You can't argue about whether or not it is possible to defend a high level immortal sentry on this map if you're incapable of defending against it anywhere else.
So you are telling me that the gold level map maker IronmanSC was unable to understand his own map Ohana? That everything he did just happened to be good? And that Cloud Kingdom made by the platinum level map maker Superouman cloudn't comprehend mech executed by a non-platinum level Terran and couldn't make a map which allows for that level of play? Understanding a concept and executing it are two different things.
On February 18 2013 12:22 Zennith wrote: You can't argue about whether or not it is possible to defend a high level immortal sentry on this map if you're incapable of defending against it anywhere else.
So you are telling me that the gold level map maker IronmanSC was unable to understand his own map Ohana? That everything he did just happened to be good? And that Cloud Kingdom made by the platinum level map maker Superouman cloudn't comprehend mech executed by a non-platinum level Terran and couldn't make a map which allows for that level of play? Understanding a concept and executing it are two different things.
Yes, he was unable to understand that. How many maps have both made and how many became successful and balanced? If you put a monkey on a typewriter and let him slam random keys, wait a billion years and eventually in that gibberish you will find something better than Shakespeare. I've said this before, whether a map becomes good or not is largely just luck. Have you seen the site of team Crux, how many maps they have made. How many found their way into the GSL and became good? Metropolis, Atlantis Spaceship and Dual Site are generally regarded as balanced disasters. While Terminus and TDA are quite balanced. Yet all five maps are made by the same person. Take a look at some of the other maps that Superouman and IronManSC made. Testbug? Khaydaria? Both regarded as minor flops and these are only the maps that have seen tournament circulation.
Ohana was voted by the staff as the lowest of the five finalists, CK was voted second. Ohana and CK turned out to be balanced and sustainable maps. However the same staff loved Korhal Compound and voted it first. A map which was quickly removed from ladder and tournament play because of its lamentable balance. The very same staff who with its 'understanding' was able to pinpoint a good map in Cloud Kingdom (which at the beginning before it was figured out was considered very hard for TvP) and Ohana, yet their insight spectacularly failed them for Korhal Compound? What could be at play here? There's a thing called luck.
This is the end of the argument. I emphasize point 1.
1) Dream Forge is actively monitoring the situation with DF Atlas (and TPW Silver Sands) for that matter amongst other maps of ours -- if we see an issue that we feel needs addressing we will address it to the best of our abilities. However, we will not rely on theory-crafting to make such a determination, nor will we rely on the argument of one or two vocal opinions (expert or otherwise) without substantial evidence in support of their argument. This is not to say that they are not correct and we are incorrect, but rather to say we need to see additional, observable, evidence in support of said argument.
2) The map is an official map in the IPTL and GSTL Pre-Season -- as such it is now up to those tournament organizations to determine whether the map is good or bad.
The players and teams have an obligation to play the map to the best of their abilities per the participatory rules of the tournament series they are participating in. If they feel uncomfortable on a map, that is unfortunate but it is not our job to cater to every single balance issue. If we did -- we would inevitably end up right back where we were 6 months ago with the community ticked off, tournaments organizers not rotating maps in their pools, and possible stagnation occurring. I am sorry that this makes it rough on the players -- I really am -- as such though it is no different than professional or semi-professional golfers playing different courses for different tournaments in rough conditions (rain, wind, etc. . .). At the end of the day, do the best you can in the situation you have.
3) This is one step towards procedural advancement of the map making community into a more prominent role in the Starcraft II community. It is not the beginning, it is most certainly not the end. Lets see what happens. Continuously bashing a map and/or the team behind it and the concepts therein will not yield positive results overall, and it is not appreciated. We have noted the argument and it is on our list. We apologize if you are dissatisfied, for the players we will try to take this matter under higher scrutiny. As map-makers if you do not like it: point it out, make a better map, promote said map, and get it in a tournament to prove us wrong. Please leave it at that.
The players and teams have an obligation to play the map to the best of their abilities per the participatory rules of the tournament series they are participating in. If they feel uncomfortable on a map, that is unfortunate but it is not our job to cater to every single balance issue. If we did -- we would inevitably end up right back where we were 6 months ago with the community ticked off, tournaments organizers not rotating maps in their pools, and possible stagnation occurring. I am sorry that this makes it rough on the players -- I really am -- as such though it is no different than professional or semi-professional golfers playing different courses for different tournaments in rough conditions (rain, wind, etc. . .). At the end of the day, do the best you can in the situation you have.
Ah yes, it's only the job of mappers to make FFE as easy as humanly possible on all maps even though it isn't actually a real balance concern and completely neglect to even consider ZvZ all the while considering PvP right? Let's not forget how the third can 't be too far away for PvZ and air space can't be too abundant to make drops too powerful in TvP. Oh no, mappers can't cater to balance. Unless of course it meagerly compromises the Protoss standard of living and comfort.
The players and teams have an obligation to play the map to the best of their abilities per the participatory rules of the tournament series they are participating in. If they feel uncomfortable on a map, that is unfortunate but it is not our job to cater to every single balance issue. If we did -- we would inevitably end up right back where we were 6 months ago with the community ticked off, tournaments organizers not rotating maps in their pools, and possible stagnation occurring. I am sorry that this makes it rough on the players -- I really am -- as such though it is no different than professional or semi-professional golfers playing different courses for different tournaments in rough conditions (rain, wind, etc. . .). At the end of the day, do the best you can in the situation you have.
Ah yes, it's only the job of mappers to make FFE as easy as humanly possible on all maps even though it isn't actually a real balance concern and completely neglect to even consider ZvZ all the while considering PvP right? Let's not forget how the third can 't be too far away for PvZ and air space can't be too abundant to make drops too powerful in TvP. Oh no, mappers can't cater to balance. Unless of course it meagerly compromises the Protoss standard of living and comfort.
I feel somebody is being subjective.
If you think all mappers but yourself favor FFE too much, go ahead and take the discussion to another thread; it doesn't really belong here. I am interested in what you're saying about the attack paths though. However, while little to no real evidence is available as of now, I don't think it's worth all the bashing.
A serious overlook caused polt to lose his medivac in the game between polt and creator, check this:
Very sloppy I must say, please fix this and look if there are more areas which should not be pathable but are really are. These kind of things might make tournaments more hesitant to get community maps since this map is the first new map in quite a while from what I know.
Very sloppy I must say, please fix this and look if there are more areas which should not be pathable but are really are. These kind of things might make tournaments more hesitant to get community maps since this map is the first new map in quite a while from what I know.
I would like to offer this map with the GameHeart overlay if you are interested. I would just need a copy of the map and your permission. I also ask map makers to provide a 600x600 credits image to go into the GameHeart lobby for their map.
Anyways I hope you are interested, the GameHeart project is on track to be adopted by at least a couple of major tournaments and many smaller organizations (I have been contacted by over a dozen organizations big and small) within the next couple of months so I think GameHeart could bring some attention/more users to your map, and your map could bring some much needed diversity to our map pool.
PM me here on liquid, hit me up on skype as rtschutter, or by email at TeamGameHeart@gmail.com
Just wanted to say Congratulations to you (and DF!) for getting into the GSL. Awesome accomplishment. Very Jealous! <3
I hope it brings some very interesting games. The couple I watched in GSTL were enjoyable enough. I think my favorite part about it is that it's a 4player map, with all spawns enabled, yet it's not extremely huge like Whirlwind, so it can be an aggressive map. It should be awesome to see games with on HotS, since there are so many better harass units now.
On April 10 2013 01:08 Existor wrote: Why not try different lighting on same tilesets? What about night desert or day on winter maps? Or Night on Korhal maps, and/or Day on Shakuras?
Wouldn't day on Shakuras be impossible, lore-wise?
Anyone got the map file for it/contact with Scorp? The map isn't open on b.net and we wanted to play it in LotV (with LotV resource distribution). Would be great if there was a way to make that happen.
On July 16 2017 16:24 Ej_ wrote: Anyone got the map file for it/contant with Scorp? The map isn't open on b.net and we wanted to play it in LotV (with LotV resource distribution). Would be great if there was a way to make that happen.
Sacred Sands (which apart from aesthetics is almost identical to Atlas) is open, so if you can't find Atlas you can use it instead.
On July 16 2017 16:24 Ej_ wrote: Anyone got the map file for it/contant with Scorp? The map isn't open on b.net and we wanted to play it in LotV (with LotV resource distribution). Would be great if there was a way to make that happen.
Sacred Sands (which apart from aesthetics is almost identical to Atlas) is open, so if you can't find Atlas you can use it instead.
Maybe I'm just an editor idiot, but I can't find it, or any other of Scorp's maps for that matter. + Show Spoiler [pic rel] +
On July 16 2017 16:24 Ej_ wrote: Anyone got the map file for it/contant with Scorp? The map isn't open on b.net and we wanted to play it in LotV (with LotV resource distribution). Would be great if there was a way to make that happen.
Sacred Sands (which apart from aesthetics is almost identical to Atlas) is open, so if you can't find Atlas you can use it instead.
Maybe I'm just an editor idiot, but I can't find it, or any other of Scorp's maps for that matter. + Show Spoiler [pic rel] +
Maybe you're on the wrong server or something? Either way I'll send you Sacred Sands.
On July 16 2017 16:24 Ej_ wrote: Anyone got the map file for it/contact with Scorp? The map isn't open on b.net and we wanted to play it in LotV (with LotV resource distribution). Would be great if there was a way to make that happen.
Just happened to be passing by today for no reason - I will see if I can't get a hold of him via Skype and see if he retained the file or not. I believe that I no longer have the last copy of it that was published.
On July 16 2017 16:24 Ej_ wrote: Anyone got the map file for it/contact with Scorp? The map isn't open on b.net and we wanted to play it in LotV (with LotV resource distribution). Would be great if there was a way to make that happen.
Just happened to be passing by today for no reason - I will see if I can't get a hold of him via Skype and see if he retained the file or not. I believe that I no longer have the last copy of it that was published.
Already uploaded Sacred Sands with LotV minerals to EU and America so that wouldn't exactly be necessary, but thanks :p