Season 3 maps discussion thread

Discussion in 'PA: TITANS: General Discussion' started by wpmarshall, April 24, 2019.

  1. wpmarshall

    wpmarshall Planetary Moderator

    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Note: Hyde / Backbone are not receiving any changes.
  2. NikolaMX

    NikolaMX Active Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    136
    Ok a lot of things to go over:

    @wpmarshall i personally love most of the maps and my major issues revolve around specific snowbally elements (similarly to what kiwi said)

    Maps that i find problematic ( you have addressed some already)

    Kelvin (naval dictates the game)

    Hyde (naval dictates the game)

    Echo (I take down my previous criticism about the rear, but it's not visually clear that units can get into the metal circle (rear) through the general ridgeline)

    Hopper I like this one the way it is. some people complain, so here is my take on how it can be improved (Naval snowballs a bit too hard early on with pirhana snipes (i like that, i think it forces players to get out of the naval proxi mentality, but it requires a larger spawn/some metal closer to the water so the commander can move there) needs some sort of leviathan barrier that makes shore-side torpedo launchers a viable defense (maybe L shaped mountains that allow the torpedo launcher to be shot at from only 1 direction?)

    Bailiff lack of continent access makes the game more multi-directional

    Basilica i've grown to dislike this one less, eager to see how it plays post fix (especially eager for orbital plays)

    A-Sat could use 1 more base metal, other then that i love the high stakes high aggression early game, really makes you think on the spot and invest in a strategy

    The rest are all great maps. I especially like Backbone,plenty of things to do on that map. (as a map, T2 air kinda ruins it, but im not sure you can do anything about that without clustering the metal)



    Now on to what @Killerkiwijuice said:

    I'll start with the less controversial stuff: Orbital (with multiple planets as spawn options) can be great for 1v1. With a bunch of 1v1 testing with other Ubers i've come to the conclusion that 2 planets is great and manageable, 3 is fine but hard, and 4 turns into entirely macro play.

    Orbital can have so much more depth in terms of strategy, do you macro hard, do you rush an invasion, do you rush endgame tools and turtle, its fun and it's surprisingly deep.


    Re map design:

    You put disproportionately low value in micro tactics and scouting. Those are things that are way more important on maps like Bailiff, Hyde and A-Sat than Maginot. Those maps require fundamentally different approaches, and while I can see why your personal style makes you better at Maginot, that's no reason to dismiss the rest. Bailiff in particular can be very deep tactically if you use your commander offensively. The APM and attention that would go into macro on Maginot go into unit control, positioning, scouting and micro tricks (fab snipes, drops). At the same time the rear continent provides room for macro and 2nd layer engagement, if you opt for that sort of play. Both are legit, we just haven't quite learned how to play them yet. I'd love to see what @nomega and @Corgiarmy can do with their crazy plays vs some ubers.


    My point is: Macro is great and fun, but it means the game essentially falls down to meta play and who can execute the meta play better.

    Micro maps come down to short, snappy build orders you have to adapt an any point in time, and tactical responses early game.

    They are very different, and both are very cool. A 8 minutes long game with sparks infernos and grenadiers can be just as entertaining as a 24 minutes long one with nukes and ares titans



    I've seen more different winning builds on A-sat alone, than on Maginot, the ardennes and Roc combined. Loosing to them and discovering new stuff is part of the fun. The less formulaic the game, the better.

    Re weird map design:
    I fully support the idea of more challenging unique maps that force players to play differently. Air first may be hard to make it work, but i think myself and a couple of others have shown it can, even on maps that were not designed for it. S3 maps are great in that they are experimental and mostly work well. Marshall was right to go in with a creative idea and make it work. I do, however, agree that there should be testing done. In particular, testing without necessarily even verbal feedback where marshi can just see if his maps play the way he wants them to, and then readjust or ask for specific feedback.

    Now to the edgy stuff:


    Kelvin: not fixed.

    [​IMG]
    Metal reduction is welcome

    Black: areas covered by Orcas and leviathan (rough estimate)

    The walled off 1 metal areas where you are supposed to plant a pelter or a bluehawk are still inaccessible.

    Tmmmmhe mountains are not tall enough to stop leviathan salvos if the leviathan is even just a but further away from the obstacle.


    Proposed fixes: put a pathable platform on the grey crossed circle so that a pelter there can reach at least some extent of the pond. Think of some way to limit the black circle to allow for army movements.

    Optional: make a mini platform where the green circle is and surround it with mountains to enable more artillery access to the pond from there.

    Finally, find a way for the blue arrow to be able to get to the 1 metal artillery points.


    The change id rather have tho is a shift in the spawn ZONE (not the spawn metal) further up or even better, to enlarge it to leave some room for choice. Now that naval doesn't have as much metal, the investment is hard to justify early game if player 2 can put pressure. As long as you arent forced to build your first factories in range of a leviathan, catapults can deal with kaijus. Also test separately to see if leviathans reach the pair of 2 metal spots on the spots around the spawn.
    wpmarshall and xankar like this.
  3. wpmarshall

    wpmarshall Planetary Moderator

    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    I've submitted the maps to be pushed to live as I put in the screenshots (which includes Basilica's new metal distribution. If it turns out that the old metal is preferred, then we can go back to that at a later date.
    The only other change I've made since the screenshots is moving the spawn in kelvin to the middle of the 4 mex.

    Cannot say WHEN these will be pushed to live, but I have requested that they are.
    NikolaMX likes this.
  4. bthirteen

    bthirteen Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    36
    Firstly Kiwi thank you for a big reply.

    I just think that you can't put the same things for comparison for different types of maps. Some maps are smaller and will have more significance on unit types and strategy while bigger, for example, will have more focus on raiding, macro, and good transition. Naval maps have their own things as well. There is one good Einsteins quote: "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

    Some ground maps should force into heavier air or dox or tanks respectively. That should/must be made with map design. I do think some maps need some changes to allow less snowbally gameplay but remember Forge? It is the same concept as Bailiff, it has insane priority in middle and who takes it first has a big chance to win but it is not for sure in any way. I do agree with your proposition to add ramps for quick access on the back side of the map, it should allow some sort of counterplay if you lose middle. But does that make it less skillful? I liked the challenge and less forgiving gameplay for a change, where the key is not getting T2 as fast as possible or mass T2 tanks, priority was on the middle part of the map. That resulted in Clopse comm push for middle, Broom lob strat, the return of the Locust, pelican fabber drop rush and other strats that are not seen very frequently.

    My problem is I just don't like that you can play each ground map, big or small with the same way.
    Last edited: June 17, 2019
    Clopse and Quitch like this.
  5. nimzodragonlord

    nimzodragonlord Member

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    47
    The thing with Forge was that the center was important strategically, and the side expansions were important economically. With Bailiff, controlling the center completely suffocates your opponent’s expansion because the back continent becomes air-access only and the 4 metal passageway is vulnerable to pelters and spark raiding.

    I think the map still has potential, and I think the additional lane to the back continent will really improve the gameplay.
    Killerkiwijuice likes this.
  6. Killerkiwijuice

    Killerkiwijuice Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,871
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    I'm not judging on map size. Map size typically has nothing to do with my ratings (unless you make it smallest or largest possible planet). It just happens that the smaller ones are rated lower because of the things I stated above, - correlation is not causation.

    I don't know what you mean by "type" of map. To me there is just good and bad maps, some play differently than others.

    This is fine. Leaning towards either dox or tanks is fine. As long as there is variability. Forge is not the same as bailiff. It's a much smaller lane, and the sides offer way more metal than mid. I remember doing a turret creep strat vs top players back in the day, and it worked well. But it also allowed for tank only, and bot rush. That map had some good variability. I do not think bailiff can be won without rushing T2 and prioritizing army value. It comes down to getting more t2 bots, then getting more t2 tanks. Person who gets them faster wins, unlike other maps where you have room to out-expand this rush.
    Yes it does make it less skillful because then your APM goes way down and you're locked into a corner. Only thing you can do is spam t2 eco and boost factories to push. Maybe get a pelican drop to the backside. Once you wait for a critical mass, you start to micro. Watch my recent game vs AndreasG. That was gross.
    These are all sub-strategies. They are merely small ways you can gain small advantages to push mid with the bigger army. Pretty shallow.
    You need to play bailiff more... Just take Basilica for another example: Only way to play this map is with proxy tank factories with a prioritization on mid. Then you rush t2 air (not an option). Realllyyyy shallow play. Hopper typically has one dominant strategy as well (rush naval, then take mid, try to expand metal expos on the backside continent).
  7. bthirteen

    bthirteen Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    36
    I'm seriously done with this topic. You don't get it.
    Last edited: June 18, 2019
  8. wpmarshall

    wpmarshall Planetary Moderator

    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    I suspect that the issue is that regardless how maps are played, initially the meta will be forced into it. If it works, it sticks. If it doesn't, it feels uncomfortable and challenging hence likely dislike of new maps, particularly this searies as I tried to change the themes up a bit. E.g. how Kiwi's initial reaction was more mex in clusters on Echo, which would have bolstered the likelihood of proxy factory usage on the map.

    Let's see how the changes affect the gameplay. They should be updated within the day, with any luck.
  9. wpmarshall

    wpmarshall Planetary Moderator

    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Changes should be live

Share This Page