Desert Needle Small 3.2 map

Back to List

Desert Needle Small 3.2

Planet Ra

By qray

Rating:

Size:

14 x 12

PLAY ON THIS MAP

Downloads: 4375

Manual downloads:
http://zero-k.info/content/maps/desert_needle_small_3.2.sd7
https://zero-k.info/content/maps/desert_needle_small_3.2.sd7
http://api.springfiles.com/files/maps/desert_needle_small_3.2.sd7

Filter: Player:

Page of 2 (26 records)

sort

Jasper
2 years ago

Featured this one has no geos

+0 / -0

Fealthas
2 years ago

Whats wrong with geos?

+1 / -0

Jasper
2 years ago

This a new version. 4.0 seems to be a fork

+0 / -0

GoogleFrog
2 years ago

Added 1v1. Does not have the economy popup.

+0 / -0

Fealthas
20 months ago

1v1 pool perhaps?

+2 / -0

Aquanim
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

Speaking for myself, I don't enjoy playing this map 1v1. In my experience most 1v1 games on this map, like Valles Marineris, are decided fairly quickly by which player expanded better in the beginning yet they still take a long time to finish due to the sheer size of the map.

Occasionally good games may be played on this map by two highly-skilled players who both expand well and have the skill to play in enough places at once, but I don't think that justifies the large number of painful slogs which make up the majority.

(Yes, I know Valles Marineris is in MM. I wish it wasn't either.)

+0 / -0

Fealthas
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

Games ending much later than they should is something I see constantly at lower elos. Its not exclusive to this map at all. There have been hour long games on 8x8 maps, with multiple striders and things like that built.
Larger maps like this are a bit harder to play on, but they don't really cause stomps; they just magnify the skill difference between people that was already there.

+2 / -0

Aquanim
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

quote:
Games ending much later than they should is something I see constantly at lower elos. Its not exclusive to this map at all.

I didn't say it was exclusive to this map. I would also say that on a map this big, games legitimately take a long and frequently annoying time to go from "I am going to win" to "I have demonstrably won", and that this is not caused by poor or unskilled play.

quote:
...but they don't really cause stomps; they just magnify the skill difference between people that was already there.

In what sense is this not a contradiction?

+1 / -0

Fealthas
20 months ago

I would say that it is caused 100 % by poor or unskilled play. Good players will resign once they realize they lost, or if they are winning will quickly close out the game.
Lower skill people already take unnecessarily long times to win/resign, no matter what the map size is. Games on big maps like this arent quiet porc fests, there is constant action and raiding going on everywhere.
So people winning by expanding better is somehow a problem? Even if its decided quickly, that isnt a problem with the map for keeping players there, its a problem with the players for not reigning. Or perhaps you know, they want to try making a comeback or seeing how long they can hold out if.
I wouldn't classify long games as "painful slogs". Most people seem to enjoy them because less seen units get to appear and more fancy tactical stuff can go on. I don't see how this is suddenly a phenomenon in that appears in maps. 12x12 map is ok, but 14x12! Oh no! Big problems! Nothing you said is not applicable to smaller maps, or medium maps, or even most larger maps.

I suppose that last thing is somewhat of a contradiction. It sounded better in my head.

+1 / -1

SnuggleBass
20 months ago

It does create more one sided games, particularly at lower elos. While I really like this map a lot, maps like this make outcomes very predictable. I think they should be represented in ladder (because people need to be exposed to these later game elements), but that they should be limited.

+0 / -0

DeinFreund
20 months ago

This is very similar to other macro maps, just with some more interesting terrain than CCR.

+1 / -0

Aquanim
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

So to bottom-line this, Fealthas as a macro-oriented player wants more macro maps and less micro maps, and myself as a micro-oriented player wants more micro maps and less macro maps. Which is unsurprising I suppose.

+0 / -0

Aquanim
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

quote:
I wouldn't classify long games as "painful slogs". Most people seem to enjoy them because less seen units get to appear and more fancy tactical stuff can go on.

I don't agree with this statement. On a large map like Valles Marineris, in my experience "tactical stuff" gets thrown out the window in favour of hammering on one another with easy-to-micro units, with little-to-no finesse.

edit: oops, doublepost

+0 / -0

SnuggleBass
20 months ago

I think this map does a better job than some others at keeping a tactical feel. The terrain lends itself to local-level decision-making.

I guess I should mention that I'm a macro-oriented player who would vote in favour of limiting the number of big maps in the pool?

+0 / -0

Aquanim
20 months ago

I suppose I oversimplified a bit as well - while there are some maps I don't like playing 1v1 on in the current pool (mostly Valles and Hide&Seek) I think the balance between map sizes isn't too bad. I would't want a large fraction of the maps to be Avalanche or Desert Needle-sized.

For that matter, besides its size, I just don't like this map in general. I'd object less to playing 1v1 on Iceland. Possibly the metal density is more to blame.

There is something to be said for having some modicum of predictability in the MM map pool. As it is, when I queue for a 1v1, I have no idea whether I'm going to get a map which is more likely to take two minutes or half an hour plus.

+0 / -0

DeinFreund
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

quote:
So to bottom-line this, Fealthas as a macro-oriented player wants more macro maps and less micro maps, and myself as a micro-oriented player wants more micro maps and less macro maps. Which is unsurprising I suppose.

I like to micro my com, striders or funny rushes, but still prefer these macro maps. Zk may be fun on smaller maps, but it just loses its competitiveness due to the increasingly random nature of the game.

You chose a bad factory? Waste 600 metal on another one then resign because the enemy has all map. The enemy com escaped your assault with 1 HP? Resign because you're an epic suicider. You were winning but your com got rushed and killed? Resign because the commander is half your eco + storage.

This doesn't mean I won't play trololo, but IMO it just doesn't fit the mm pool because of how Elo loses its meaning due to the randomness of these maps.

The actual solution to this may be to give the players some choice over what maps to play. On github was a suggestion for banning maps when entering mm, so you can chose one or a few maps you don't want to play on.

+2 / -0

SnuggleBass
20 months ago

Really? People complain about all this RPS but except for a few specific points in ZK history (looking at you gunships) I just don't see it.

Most maps have a limited number of facs/strats that are viable.

Right now, hover meta isn't RPS. Hover is the thing you expect, so don't pick strats that lose to dagger -> scalp. Sure complain about balance, but if you're getting RPSed by the dominant strat, you're failing to adapt.

+1 / -0

Fealthas
20 months ago

Thank god for hover meta. ZK is less RPS now, because anything other than hover = lose.

+1 / -1

SnuggleBass
20 months ago

I'm not defending it. I'm saying you can't complain about RPS unpredictability and complain about the homogeneous competitive environment. Pick one.

+0 / -0

Fealthas
20 months ago

If hover exists-
If you are hover-
Can win
You are not hover-
lose
Hover does not exist
Enjoy RPS

+0 / -0

Page of 2 (26 records)

Back to List

Desert Needle Small 3.2

Planet Ra

PLAY ON THIS MAP

Last battles