|
It's pretty much a concept at this point, it's not a serious map, aesthetics aren't completely finalized so there are no aesthetic shots yet.
Basically, it's all spawns enabled, that's the entire point of the map. If I can't make all spawns enabled work I'll scrap the map entirely. I want a map that is a rushmap, a macro map and a scrap-station like very close air distance map in one depending on where you spawn. This was how old metalopolis and shattered temple worked and I liked them more than most of the maps in the pool today.
This map is obviously heavily inspired by metalopolis, the direct rush distance inc lose pos is fairly low of course but you have to traverse a Klontas-Mire like bridge to make use of it so that position can be easily held. Apart from that we have no less than 9 bases per player, 2 of which half, 1 of which a gold. But some of those won't realistically be taken depending on spawn.
|
Some of those chokes look awfully tight! Is the third base a little too close? To me that looks reminiscent of Terminus SE/RE in terms of how close the base is, but maybe not if it is a particularly big map.
I encourage you to always list the playable map dimensions, because it gives people a better idea of how large a map is and what the possible problems (rush distances, choke size, base distances) that might be present, without them having to load a game on the map.
Pretty use of blue lighting with the grey, very standard space feel yet still pretty.
The map would most likely be a lot better without the watch towers (or with them at much less influential positions) because the current position reveals too much and thus makes them too important; that tends to take away some of the value in the rest of the strategy in the game.
Regardless of which third bases are taken, close by ground (vertical) will be a nightmare, especially for zerg (no safe third = usually die vs toss at least).
Obviously, close by air makes some things stupidly good due to how quickly the first can arrive in your base, as well as general travel time, things like fast banshees (2 port vs zerg T_T), fast oracles (death if not scouted), fast void rays, mutas.
Typo in last paragraph: "inc lose" instead of "in close" (I mentioned it because it thre me for a moment, thinking you were talking about it increasing the lose % in some position ).
|
Well, my position on close positions has been debated here a lot. I still don't believe it is imbalanced against Zerg simply because I always enjoyed a very good wrinate on small maps with Z. I agree with qxc's point on this. Zerg isn't 'the macro race' by design, it became the macro race because IdrA played it and everyone looked after IdrA. Short rush distances aren't bad for Zerg, they are bad for defensive play, and many Zerg players originally choose Zerg because they liked to play defensively and got inspired by Idra. If you play aggressively with Zerg like I do short rush distances obviously work in your favour. I've always enjoyed good winrates on any map with short rush distances with every race because I play aggressively, that's pretty much it. I don't believe you need to maximize drone count with Zerg and absorb blows.
Close by air might be a bit too close by air though, and since the mains are currently too large I feel, both problems obviousyl can be remedied in one fix.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
Regardless of which third bases are taken, close by ground (vertical) will be a nightmare, especially for zerg (no safe third = usually die vs toss at least).
Maybe I'm just set in my ways on how I feel a map should work, but what's stopping zerg just taking one of the other mains or one of the bases far away from the toss? It's not like you have to take the base right next to you (despite what everyone seems to say) as the time it'll take them to go kill that base gives you time to mount up a big enough army to either go counter attack or go kill his army.
Bases being so close together stops things like that happening because if you lose your third and it's close, you've lost the game as they're blocking off your only exit to get to the opponents base and are right on top of the natural.
|
How big is it? (playable bounds)
|
I'm a big fan of 4p mirrored with all spawns enabled, and have been trying to make something work inspired by Cherno by Superouman.
This is an interesting take on it. The bases can be closer together because they are so open, which helps you control rush distance more precisely.
I agree with shrinking the size of the mains by a little bit in order to have the potential for a stabilized game with a lot of investment into static defense on one front. Definitely keep the in-base line of sight blockers. I miss those from the older blizzard maps.
|
It's currently 134², the mains have already been shrunk in the current working version together with increasing the air space between close by air.
Edit:
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
Siskos, maybe it's just me but I think this map would be better without four of the bases. I think it'd be much more interesting if to take a fourth you had to move over to another main cluster. If not, much like every other 4 player map in the pool it leads to people taking the token fourth base in their corner and the game never getting past that point.
It's a huge problem I've had with all the 4 player maps currently, but maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe you could make the half bases mineral only?
|
True, but the problem here being that if you remove some of the bases the fourth or third would be too far away in certain spawns I feel or people would share one of the bases. I'm thinking of making the open third base a 2/3 base as well though. In that case if you want a full third you do actually have to cross into an unoccupied main or natural.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
Can a fourth base really be too far away? I know the game is designed around 3 base play, but I've never really seen why fourth bases need to be really close (like on Akilon and Whirlwind). It's like looking back to maps like Entomed I think they'd be much more interesting without the token extra four bases.
|
On July 01 2013 09:16 Qikz wrote: Can a fourth base really be too far away? I know the game is designed around 3 base play, but I've never really seen why fourth bases need to be really close (like on Akilon and Whirlwind). It's like looking back to maps like Entomed I think they'd be much more interesting without the token extra four bases. There is a limit to how hard a 4th can be, yes. Look at Antiga Shipyard for example, that map was disliked(bad) for a couple of major reasons, but the big one was how difficult expanding was late-game, where you really couldn't get to 4, 5, or 6 bases unless you already had a solid advantage. 4th bases can be harder than they are now, Derelict Watcher tries to pull this off, but you have to be careful.
|
This is also why I in principle don't really like 4 player maps or anything but 2 player maps. You'll continue to be pestered by the limits of euclidean geometry trying to make all spawns work. Yes, I agree, currentlyt here are 4 bases too close together. So what's the alternative, how do I move them? I could basically remove 4 altogether and fuse all the third/fourths but that would allow people to too easily expand to their opponent in non cross spawns. But maybe I honestly should at least fuse the 10/11 and 4/5 bases. But doing so would require people no longer to traverse a very small ledge in order to reach their opponent in that spawn. Maybe I should just make them islands or semi islands altogether though?
It currently looks like this by the way:
|
Oh wow! Awesome! Metalopolis strikes back :D Cool map dude! Edit: Seems like there might be a bit to much airspace around the edges?
|
2 things.
You can't remake metalopolis to work in all spawns without violating the rules of standard maps. I know you have no problem with this but then of course the task becomes how far you can push it while trying to make a map that works in spite of rule violations. What you've done works pretty well most of the time, but not perfectly all the time. (I'm talking in terms of balance/design problems.) I don't think it's worth it to pursue an all spawns 4p map that has that ceiling of viability.
So, the other option is to include nonstandard features that "fix" the map, like the version I made (that looks similar to this) with barriers only the defender can open by remote destruction. (Destructible rocks but the "switch" is in your base.) Or other things I'm sure you can think of more too.
The close positions rush distance is almost certainly not tenable. The inclusion of the cliffhug 3rd for close positions makes it much more likely than before to produce apparently fair games, but I still don't think that really solves anything. Essentially the ZvT matchup is just broken in close spawns even with the concessions made for that spawn in this design. I agree that even at a reasonably high level of play zerg can do fine and it's more or less "skill wins". However, at the highest level of play zergs choices are severely limited by close spawn (which is bad even apart from balance) and I believe they play at a severe disadvantage due to the need for higher income as the game goes longer.
tl;dr not bad, not good enough
p.s. I know it doesn't interest you really but you could do these "fixes" and dodge the close spawn problems + Show Spoiler [picture] +
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On July 01 2013 13:46 SiskosGoatee wrote:This is also why I in principle don't really like 4 player maps or anything but 2 player maps. You'll continue to be pestered by the limits of euclidean geometry trying to make all spawns work. Yes, I agree, currentlyt here are 4 bases too close together. So what's the alternative, how do I move them? I could basically remove 4 altogether and fuse all the third/fourths but that would allow people to too easily expand to their opponent in non cross spawns. But maybe I honestly should at least fuse the 10/11 and 4/5 bases. But doing so would require people no longer to traverse a very small ledge in order to reach their opponent in that spawn. Maybe I should just make them islands or semi islands altogether though? It currently looks like this by the way:
I personally think you could remove the third bases on the highground by the bridges and just have the three bases per side with the bridges connecting all the corners of the map.
|
On July 01 2013 17:10 EatThePath wrote: 2 things.
You can't remake metalopolis to work in all spawns without violating the rules of standard maps. I know you have no problem with this but then of course the task becomes how far you can push it while trying to make a map that works in spite of rule violations. What you've done works pretty well most of the time, but not perfectly all the time. (I'm talking in terms of balance/design problems.) I don't think it's worth it to pursue an all spawns 4p map that has that ceiling of viability. In my opinion, Metalopolis itself worked fine with close pos enabled when it was still in the pool. More balanced than some of the current maps in the pool with closed pos and less ZZZZ snore games where both players are forced to fast expand or all in due to the map layout and such a thing as pressure expands no longer exist.
So, the other option is to include nonstandard features that "fix" the map, like the version I made (that looks similar to this) with barriers only the defender can open by remote destruction. (Destructible rocks but the "switch" is in your base.) Or other things I'm sure you can think of more too. I could, but I don't think there's a thing wrong with rushmaps. I also don't think there's a balance problem with rushmaps.
The close positions rush distance is almost certainly not tenable. Of course it's tenable, it was tentable on star station, it was tenable on metalopolis.
There is no balance problem, the only problem that exists is that it doesn't allow for the defensive macro games that you like personally. THat'sgreat, that's your prerogative, we all have our own opinions. I think Atlas doesn't allow for the aggressive multitasking and harassment oriented games that I like to see (and on top of that it's horribly imbalanced statistically). We all have our different opinions.
The inclusion of the cliffhug 3rd for close positions makes it much more likely than before to produce apparently fair games, but I still don't think that really solves anything.
Essentially the ZvT matchup is just broken in close spawns even with the concessions made for that spawn in this design. It isn't, come with proof of this. There is no correlation between rush distance and ZvT balance. Icarus has short rush distances and is Zerg favoured. So has Metalopolis always been. TDA has had the longest rush distances ever and is balanced in ZvT. Whirlwind has long rush distances and is imbalanced. There is no indication that rush distances are a causative factor for ZvT balance.
I agree that even at a reasonably high level of play zerg can do fine and it's more or less "skill wins". However, at the highest level of play zergs choices are severely limited by close spawn (which is bad even apart from balance) and I believe they play at a severe disadvantage due to the need for higher income as the game goes longer. Every race's choices are limited by close spawns as they are by extreme far spawns. In close spawns you have to rush, in long spawns you have to play passively, in mid you can sort of choose between either, close by air you probably get some air tech.
tl;dr not bad, not good enough p.s. I know it doesn't interest you really but you could do these "fixes" and dodge the close spawn problems + Show Spoiler [picture] + It could make it more zerg favoured, it could also make it more Terran favoured because counter attack routes and attack routes into the natural and removed.
That said, the current working version is this:
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
That's better, but I think the big middle base being a full base really does limit the actual movement of both players. I don't see why unless it's / spawns you'd ever want to go to the other side of the map unless it's mech vs mech TvT or super lategame.
|
I don't get it, with other side you mean to expand or to attack your opponent?
In close spawns you obviously want to rush since distances are short, in close air dropping and air is extremely easy so it's a waste to not take advantage.
that said, I agree that I am not completely comfortable with it being a full base. I guess the only theory I'm holding on to now is that the more forward third is closer by and doesn't take rocks to break even though it's in a forward position. In metal itself you typically never expanded to your opponent's side of the map so I don't see that as an issue. I could see in some cases if it was cross to take the attached-third of the close by air main. I can see that being a pretty strong strat for some barade pushes or mech pushes.
I don't know, thinking about it I actually kind of like how the expansions work, I'm seeing a lot of different expansion routes depending on spawn, matchup and strat you can take on this map currently.
|
I like this map but it should only get cross spawn positions, like Star Station. Well, good luck with this map, it looks really, really nice. Metalop was a pretty good map back in its day.
|
Cross spawn only removes any reason to make it four player, you're taking the disadvantages without the advantage. And I specifically set out to create a map which is a rush map, a macro map or an air map depending on spawns.
|
|
|
|