Discussion in 'PA: TITANS: General Discussion' started by wpmarshall, April 24, 2019.
Bug: I played canyon in ranked even though it was removed.
Whats your take on non symmetrical maps? I find maps that offer different approaches for each spawn play great, with differing options for each spawn leaving the players to decide on best approach from there. A lot of old school PA was about this approach.
I think this is what we all miss as Veterans in honesty, We all have a problem with the tr2 macro game that is and seem to miss all the random plays of old that were possible due to map style, balance is obviously a player here too as old plays don't work in the face of earlier tr2 90%.
Anyway, I would love to see more maps with a random non symmetrical style with spawns balanced around predicted approaches, ease of approaches, Land, Naval, Defendable etc. It can be hard to pull off but I find it makes for the most interesting events in game.
I know the PAG boys liked the Naval land map, unsure of the name, I've only played it a few times, I too found it interesting. I think were all missing abit of that randomness and difference in approach and I think that is what makes PA.
(the links are clickable)
Good: 6-7 (Good: 6-7)
Legendary : 10
Echo new: Stays █ 5 █.
Haven't played, (but you've shared some changes to this one so I wont judge yet)
Exeunt new: Stays █ 3 █.
Really awkward to play on. The only expansion routes are sideways, and both lead to an ocean of open terrain.
A common trend is the spawn ramps. It just doesn't make base building fun. Not to mention, there's SIX choke points at this spawn: https://i.imgur.com/4DTo4p9.png
Expansion 1. Leads to a double cluster of metal, then none of the rest is free. The nearest metal from this pair is a single extractor farther to the right, then there's a skinny ramp with 3 metal, which is close to halfway around the entire map from the spawn. Here is my suggestion: https://i.imgur.com/PRH8TpK.png
Expansion 2. This one isn't terrible. But, I still don't like how is heavily encourages pelter and turret spam due to the crazy chokes and narrow expansions. Suggestion: https://i.imgur.com/eBfdywS.png
Backside. There is almost no reason to go here. The combination of low metal density on this main platform, choke points, and being wide open makes it a high-risk low-reward expansion. If it had higher metal density, it may be a worthy proxy route, because it's just too far. Suggestion: https://i.imgur.com/KBemLeq.png Now, the center platform metal dist is a little bit subjective, but the expos on the sides are very good IMO.
Bailiff new: Downgraded from 6 to █ 5 █.
Plays like hopper without treeco and naval. Locusts are strong, and there are a lot of choke points.
Please remove this CSG, it makes base building annoying and creates a bad choke point with high ground. https://i.imgur.com/WF7gXzr.png
Remove these CSGs in blue and add some metal in the red box so players don't starve if they lose the secondary continent: https://i.imgur.com/lFOmYl7.png
Speaking of the second continent, I think it plays fine but I don't like how the only place to access it besides air is one of the worst choke points i've ever seen in my life: https://i.imgur.com/SkV3RSe.png Add a small bridge behind the spawn so land fabbers can access this continent directly from your base. Downgraded to 5/10 until further notice.
Basilica new: █ 4 █.
Haven't played, (but you've shared some changes to this one so I wont judge yet)
A-Sat new: Upgraded from 4 to █ 6 █.
Better than I expected. I don't have major suggestions, but some CSGs should probably go. Just not sure which ones. Upgrading from a 4/10 to a 6/10. I will need to play this one more.
District new: stays █ 6.5 █.
It's ok. There are so many CSGs that it feels incredibly awkward to expand on, and there is literally no way to engage without encountering a choke point caused by a CSG.
Look, there's another ramp CSG inside the base like on bailiff: https://i.imgur.com/coATNfj.png Here's how to fix the spawn: https://i.imgur.com/wclaR8M.png I think removing those two metal is fine too, either works.
And look at these CSGs: https://i.imgur.com/kiv1WMp.png Remove all of these, except for the ones i'm about to show.
I would do this: https://i.imgur.com/7PPBMHL.png Replace the bottom two with a skinnier CSG (shown in red) and remove that middle one entirely.
Maginot new: stays █ 8 █.
Good, as expected. No major complaints after playing. I like the expansion options, and it appears to have low snowball potential. Stays 8/10.
Hyde new: Upgraded from 7 to █ 8 █.
I Like it. The expansions are sideways but they are done correctly. Four fab start is very strong it seems. I currently do not have any suggestions, and the CSGs have not caused as much trouble as I expected. I will upgrade from a 7/10 to 8/10 until further notice. FYI, 8/10 is the highest I will go until I play these maps more. The last two points resolve edge cases.
Kelvin new: stays █ 7 █.
Plays better than I expected, however I don't like the expansion between bases. Suggestion: https://i.imgur.com/VwcQI8Y.png This makes it so that when someone locks down this expansion, it can be taken back without sending 4 ares titans over to break the choke
The naval lake with the metal might be a bit overpowered. Since it is a lane naval map, someone who takes the lake will keep it for the entirety of the game. Consider adding some metal to the smaller lake so someone who loses the main lake has a backup option.
Rotunda new: █ 8 █.
As expected, it plays great. I really don't have any suggestions. It does play like a canyon 2.0, however it is more open overall. Stays 8/10.
Hopper new: stays █ 7 █.
I wish the secondary large continent had denser metal clusters. Expanding there is a chore. Otherwise, it plays decently. HOWEVER, my main issue with the land portion is that once someone captures the center area it is very difficult to take it back, and your only other option for metal is the secondary continent which is hard to expand to because only air fabs or fabber drops can start the process (those can get sniped!). In laymans terms, this map has high snowball potential. Need to play more.
Backbone new: stays █ 4 █.
This map is currently bugged for me. I played one game on it, and the planet was stuck inside of the gas giant. I don't have serious feedback for it.
Overall the maps play better than expected. The maps are very diverse. I will try to play some more and make some more solid conclusions.
New average (I am ignoring backbone because it is currently bugged for me): █ 6.14 █ +
Soo many maps.
That must have been a lot of effort and time. You have as have others given soo freely for so long. Thankyou for your effort .Thankyou for the maps. The Nosebreaker looks forward to enjoying some battles on those maps for season three.
Good: 6-7 (Good: 6-7)
Legendary : 10
Quick Midseason impressions:
Echo new: from 5 to 8 █
Definitely has become one of my favorite maps. Rewards map control and good macro play. It's hard to snowball on this map.
"I can make some mistakes, but I can come back from a weak start or maybe unlucky fabber snipes. I have confidence in improving my skill on this map to outplay the enemy"
Exeunt new: from 3 to 5 █
Rewards map control and has slight snowball potential. There isn't one build that dominates. I really don't like how much it enables turtles.
"I can make a few mistakes, but any more and I will lose map control quickly."
Bailiff new: from 5 to 2 █
The only reason this map has any points is that I like the possibility for taking the large continent. Otherwise, the spawns are ridiculously small and anyone who gets run over by the first push has a high chance of losing. One of the biggest snowballs I've seen.
"Making even one mistake can cost me the game, and there is no merit in even trying to improve on a map dominated by making mistakes."
Basilica new: from 5 to 3 █
Has one dominant strategy: early air aggression and focus the middle of the map (the passage in the mountains) to build up a proxy base. Once this center piece is taken there is not much you can do for counterplay. Huge snowball.
"Losing my fabbers will cost me the game if I don't make a similar trade. No point in trying to improve on a map that doesn't allow for mistakes."
A-Sat new: from 6 to 5 █
Another big snowball map, but less so than some others. Lose one expansion and you lose half of your production or more, while the other metal on the map is nearly impossible to secure before and after t2.
"My goal is to snipe fabbers then try to snowball T2 advantage. No point trying to improve unpredictable strategies."
District new: from 6.5 to 6 █
Allows for a lot of proxy tank factories and rewards good macro. There's not much snowball here. It's really hard to not turtle, because there are a ton of lanes and chokes. It's a unique map that offers a unique playstyle, but maybe not one that brings out the best in PA.
"My goal is to gain map control via proxy factories, then use t2 to break through the enemy fortifications. There is room to improve my macro play, but my engagements are unpredictable due to choke points."
Maginot new: from 8 to 9 █
Highly rewards macro play over the entire game, but also rewards micro play in the early game. Really brings out fun engagements, especially given the option to ignore lanes entirely. It's a map that brings out mind games more than others.
"In order to lose, I either have to misplay macro or make a long sequence of mistakes. I can make comebacks from unlucky openers or bad trades, which allows for a very high skill cap."
Hyde new: from 8 to 6 █
Allows for a few strategies but the dominant one by far lies in naval presence. Locking down naval gives you a massive advantage if you keep your main base alive.
"I can make some mistakes, but losing naval and expansions allows for a pretty bad snowball."
Kelvin new: stays 7 █
Allows for a few strategies but naval presence is again very very strong. Rewards good macro but enables some turtles.
"I can try many different strategies, but losing naval gives my opponent a massive advantage if I can't take out his ground expansions."
Rotunda new: stays 8 █
Rewards good macro, doesn't snowball, enables turtles.
"In order to lose, I either have to misplay macro or make a long sequence of mistakes. I can make comebacks from unlucky openers or bad trades, but breaking the turtle shell doesn't make gameplay very fun."
Hopper new: from 7 to 4 █
Snowballs slightly, relies on naval win conditions really heavily. The secondary continent is useless beyond capturing a few metal spots.
"I can only make a few mistakes, and losing the center gives my opponent a big advantage. If I get slower T2 naval than my opponent, my chances of winning go down dramatically."
Backbone new: from 7 to 5 █
It's an alright naval map, but obviously snowballs hard from losing fabbers. Doesn't allow for more than a handful of mistakes.
"I can only make a couple of mistakes, but I can randomize a few strategies to throw off my opponent."
It's become much clearer which maps are good, and which aren't so good. Notice a common trend: snowball maps are rated low, and skill-based maps are rated high.
New average: █ 5.66 █ -
That for me sums up this game. This can work on most maps we have now, except Bailiff and the small ones. If I makie 2 mistakes and my opponent none then I deserve to lose.
Pretty obvious what maps you like from your lists. Agree with your Bailiff (3 for me) score though. Once you lose the middle it can be near impossible to come back. There shouldn't be a choke like that on lava maps. At least on Hopper (7) you can make a beach head with naval and attack from there.
Basillica (7) has a lot of potential.
Still too early to consider changing anything if you ask me. To be honest we are playing half of the maps poorly.
I don't like playing maps that are dominated by a single strategy, even though I tend to play similarly. And half of these maps offer little to no room for strategy improvement. It's literally a matter of answering the question "How do you win on this map?", if you find a solution quickly (and are confident about it) then the map is no good for me.
Take basilica for example. It's impossible to lock down the temple, so there goes nearly half the map. Your next option is locking down the two open areas of metal, which are also nearly impossible to secure. The last option is the center of the map with the mountain valley. This offers high metal density and natural protection against enemy forces. Also, it's an easy place to set up a secondary base with T2. It's a no-brainer to prioritize this area. If the enemy takes this, you're just about screwed for metal and map control. I've yet to find a high level game where the player that takes center loses...
I feel pretty confident about my scores and the lack of strategy on the low-rated maps.
Of course you're confident about the scores you gave. I'm confident about mine too. But I know they are my scores and not THE scores for the maps.
Watched your game on basillica where you didnt prioritize this area and lost. Guessing this is where the sudden drop in this score came from. So we both agree you didnt play the map right.
It's not about "playing the map right" when there is one win condition (the center). That's exemplary snowball. Getting fabs sniped because you looked away for a sec? There goes your only chance at taking mid.
I have edited Bailiff to have a second path to the reat continent from just outside your spawn. Hopefully I can get this update pushed.
Basilica has been edited to have the metal redistributed. Again, need to liaise when these updates (along with District platform change) can be pushed.
Thanks Marshall. For the record, I fully support your maps even though I'm highly critical. But I'm not going to pretend that I like some of them, because I care about ranked and the quality of games.
Also my map ratings are not based on preference (sure, maybe I like some aesthetics...). It's based on my games and games I've seen from other high ranked players. Now, the interpretation of these games is opinionated, but I tried rating based on perceived skill caps (degree of macro, micro, raiding, mind games, unit composition pathing, etc). If that's not the way other people want to rate maps then I just simply disagree.
Tbh you are making all maps same, macro heavy to support proxy tank meta. We need maps with little room for error, where spacing is important (how you build) and what you build. We barely have any heavy naval maps, low eco-maps, strategic pathing ones, and other types like orbital or heavy on islands or orbital. I'm getting seriously bored on macro only games where the early game is ALMOST 0% impact when T2 (which is forced so hard not as an option rather a necessity to end games only thru T2 units) Where are those games where you guys played with boombots to kill comm\comm rushes etc? Allow map designers to create maps that are meant to be played with other units. For map designers you need map testing before releasing maps into ranked, good example is that naval\orbital map that has good design\type of gameplay BUT you don't have metal to support orbital gameplay at all.
Maps should be designed to have high skill caps, and low-eco maps certainly have little skill to them. Any noob can see that winning a low eco game comes down to easy micromanagement and memorized build orders. Maps that don't allow for mistakes are literally snowball maps.
Naval balance is shallow and has no skill.
Boredom issues mostly lie in balance. T2 eco is too strong. It doesn't really have to do with the maps.
The maps where comm pushes and dox spam worked were like 3-4 years ago with entirely different balance. Those maps wouldn't play the same way today.
To play something like that you want to host FFA with ~450 radius ~50 metal planet (randm map generator helps) and you are going to have 1-2 early T1 wars before you start hitting 200 income. And you probably finish the game with T2 and ~400-600 income.
Otherwise in PA you are stuck with T2 meta for good.
And no this is a not noob gamemode you actually have to think about how you spend your money and where you go. You actually have to reclaim everything especially when you defeat your first opponent. Sometimes you finish the game with 125% metal used. Meaning that 1 in every 5 metals you gained was actually reclaimed and not extracted.
If we re talking about 1v1 games then i dont even know how you make t1 viable. Pretty much play 300 radius maps with 25 metal? In game you usually start doing T2 when you hit like 100+ income. So you must be pretty much capped at ~70 income to never be able to get to T2.
How can you say that small low-eco maps have low skill when you lost to lob strat that is old as bible? (with "meta" build and insane eco advantage) (don't worry) I have lost on that map to more things than on any other map. Smaller maps put another value to consider while playing in numbers\army value meaning you can't bleed so hard or you will get stomped asap, over big maps where you threw army worth over few 10ks of metal to basically mines and nothing happens. Do I have to say that types of unit matter so so much more? I'm not saying that all maps should be heavy to play just we need something different than big macro, multiple T2 tanks production maps.
Naval at this shiity balance has more skill than any other type of gameplay just think that you build all types of T2 naval units where isn't just spam. You could say that you spam subs but you need some general units to kill with. (if we built naval factories somehow on shores we would spamm T1 destroyers over subs) Naval gameplay can be won before T2 or mid-game or fully late game even with orbital gameplay, it can be played with air or naval heavier and there is always 3rd dimension as hover units. Scouting is critical there as types of units you build! You just don't want to learn it. (My experience watching your games vs Nik)
Example: you let your fabbers get sniped it is always 1 pirana coming from another direction you haven't scouted while you started early sub OR you play aggressively with your air and let enemy bomber snipe your fabbers.
Every green or yellow map is a macro game and red\orange are maps that allow different gameplay. That's the thing with your newer adjustments. They kill maps gameplay wise. You always open mountains to allow tank pushes, never create good ramps\chokes, decrease eco or make pelican islands. Its always the same thing with ground tank pushes and big eco.
Boredom comes from playing the same type of gameplay no matter what type of map it is. If we could have hover levelers you would probably play those over T2 naval.
Do you know which map had an insane skill cap? Lock. And everybody hates it even if they never played on it haha. They added elevation and engagement strategy on top of a small map with low eco.
I have always wanted a map where you can only sustain 4-5 T1s of your choice and then you have to move your comm to the middle to push more eco for T2 or more T1 pressure. Or map that forces you to open air and you have to take islands with and build a proxy for a ground army. I don't know why we don't have maps where planets are from start on a collision course and after 20 min they destroy planets so you have to choose to tech up and move your comm to another smaller asteroid with less eco (but come there faster) OR fight early and win the game before event. How about pure orbital gameplay when orbital gameplay is fixed?
I'm a little confused now as to who supports the S3 design philosophy I was assuming for of unique play themes, whether it worked in the main or not.
I gather Kiwi likes little interference from map design as in Alpha/Beta for ups and downs throughout the game and that b13 likes the philosophy I assumed for? While clopse likes a mix? I feel the ratings for a few of the maps are perhaps more negative than necessary, but I do take points that I haven't yet achieved what I was assuming for in some of the maps eg hopper's 2nd Island and naval potence.
No need to bring that up, I'm 99% confident that I know the correct (and only) strategy for this map now. Would love to prove it but I haven't had much time to play anymore.
Sure, agreed. And smaller maps can be great. Centax is on the smaller side and it's good. You bring up Lock later, and yes it is a good map. I'm not hating on small maps. I'm hating on the ones that snowball and involve little skill. Here, let me define what I call skill (includes, but not limited to):
Mind games (predicting your opponent)
Snowball (rate that win% changes for each opponent from small wins/trades/territory gains)
Let's take bailiff for example:
Macromanagement: low (nik says it's probably high, but any noob can memorize build orders in this tiny spawn)
Unit composition: med
Mind games: low
Unit composition: low
Mind games: low (there's like two viable strategies and expansion routes)
Now take Maginot:
Micromanagement: high at the start, falls off towards late game
Macromanagement: veryyyy high
Raiding: veryyy high
Unit composition: Medium
Mind games: Medium (it's more of a spray-and-pray map)
Now you can see how I rate things.
I don't really know what you're getting at here. Naval is clearly dominated by fabber sniping, and if it gets beyond this point it comes down to turtling and/or spamming subs and T2 air. Half of the naval units are useless and hard countered by either gunships or subs (especially with the gunship buff). Have you heard about the battleship mod? This is much better naval balance even if some parts of it violate WYSIWYG. But the best parts, like being able to micro vs torpedoes, are essential in making naval have skill. It's basically just macro and scouting, maybe a little raiding, for naval. Naval simply isn't fun on maps like Aquilarous and Backbone (Sure, that's an opinion now. But I doubt you could find many people that disagree). It's not 100% map's fault. In addition, the OPness of naval is amplified on land-water maps like Kelvin and Hyde, where taking the naval ponds first gives you a massive advantage.
Please tell me how macro games don't allow different gameplay. That's why I love macro so much. The red and yellow maps are snowball maps and I can promise you that given enough time you'll see that their metas evolve into the same **** over and over.
Again, boredom of macro is due to balance issues.
Yes I agree Lock is a great small map. It allows for multiple starting strategies, namely lob strats, triple bot, rushing mid and turtling, t2 rush, and probably some sort of turtle since it's a small map with ramps and chokes. It requires good micro, good scouting, good raiding, good mind games, doesn't snowball easily, but lacks macro. It's almost like my point is being proven...
Weird, this sounds a lot like the correct (and only) strat for Bailiff... We'll see. When I have time I can show it.
Namely, Meso, and some maps from 1v1 map packs. Sounds pretty fun.
Orbital gameplay is pretty bad for 1v1, it is full turtle and instantaneous arrival means basically any orbital fabber can get sniped. It's like a delayed form of blind chess.
Some of the alpha/beta maps were really bad. I mean, they weren't even symmetrical. But the good old ones tended to have a lot of variability. Meso was probably the best 1v1 map in season 1. I'm not trying to stay with tradition, I'm trying to explain to everyone what makes a map good, and I do not think it comes down to opinion or preference. It should be really objective (at least I'm trying to make it that way).
BAILIFF (Blue path is definite, Red ramp is up for debate)
DISTRICT (spawn ramp removal only)
KELVIN (Crater smaller for less intrusion into base; naval mex reduced by 1; mountain cover added to sides for defence)
BASILICA (Changes up for debate)
No further edits planned presently.
Looks amazing. My issues with OP naval, the mountain pass on basilica (and the temple), the spawns on bailiff and district are all fixed. You're the best marshii
Comments REQUIRED from a WIDE selection of players before these get near pushing.
Separate names with a comma.