Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Forum index  > General discussion   >

Archers valley in the next tourney round

36 posts, 1047 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (36 records)
sort
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
Archers valley have an uneven mex distribution where the north half have about 10% more than the south side.
However I'd argue that the default boxes balances this out by giving the south side a large box.
When south got a larger box they have an easier time contesting, denying or taking mexes on the north side as they can place closer to the north side.

I think this map is balanced enough to the point that you can't say which side got the advantage when south has a bigger box than north.
+0 / -0

AUrankAdminSaktoth
12 years ago
Archers is an awesome map. If it's broken we should fix the mexes with a custom metal layout.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
Don't fix what isn't broken. :D
This thread is a response to people in the tourny claiming that this map is unbalanced.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
12 years ago
I side with our glorious leader.

Haters can veto.
+0 / -0


FIranksprang
12 years ago
Sorry, but I'm not gonna switch Archers back for this round, and it might not make it to the next round either (I have something different planned). However, if the conclusion here is, that the default boxes make the map balanced, it can still be used some later round.

Alternatively, the metalmap could get a complete overhaul (would need to edit the texture too).
+0 / -0
DErankKlon
12 years ago
well different start boxes also mean different terrain, ... blabla ... mexes oddly placed anyway... still unbalanced. not saying its a bad map, i like it much. actually ill just volunteer to fix the metal map.
+0 / -0
DErankKlon
12 years ago
http://zero-k.info/Maps/DetailName?name=Archers_Valley_v6

mexes are now pretty much mirrored for both sides. east vs west should work too tho middle mex is still a little off-center.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
Well the hills aren't "balanced" as well.
Zero-K and Spring maps in general are very varied and most games plays well on many maps.
Since there isn't any strict map formula like in Starcraft and players have so many factory choices it is hard to say what makes a map unbalanced since there are too many factors to take into account. An uneven mex distribution might be offset by different terrain advantages from hills or plains, cliffs or smooth ledges.
In Starcraft, buildorders need to be adjusted to the map. If there is asymmetry on the map it gets complicated as you'd have to practice on different starting positions to get a good buildorder and be able to create a tight wall to prevent Zergling run-byies.
ZK doesn't have any strict buildorders like that so you don't really have to practice on different maps to get a good buildorder so asymmetry isn't as bad in ZK.

I like asymmetric maps.
+0 / -0
USrankJasper
12 years ago
The vast majority of zero-k map are symmetrical or if not close to symmetrical.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
Another reason to maintain the asymmetry in the few maps that are asymmetrical.
It would be fun to see some really asymmetrical maps that are balanced.
Balancing asymmetrical maps is off course much harder than balancing symmetrical maps.
+0 / -0
DErankKlon
12 years ago
well archers vale with just different sized boxes wasnt that balanced really, it was just a workaround. the map as such is still asymmetrical even with nearly symmetrical mex layout.
+0 / -0
USrankJasper
12 years ago
Asymmetry height maps are one thing. Asymmetry metal maps are something else entirely.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
quote:
well archers vale with just different sized boxes wasnt that balanced really, it was just a workaround. the map as such is still asymmetrical even with nearly symmetrical mex layout.
According to what criteria do you deem it to not be balanced with different sized boxes?

Theoretical scenario:Lets say we have small map. Out of this small map we make a large map putting space around the small map. The new parts of the map lacks resources and might even be completely flat. We make the south side have more space between the edge of the map and the old map. Now the resources are shifted towards the north side. By giving the south side a bigger box they can basically make up for this unbalanced resource distribution or would you say that this map is unbalanced?
+0 / -0
USrankJasper
12 years ago
(edited 12 years ago)
I dont feel that boxes fully fix it more travel time from rear harder to defend etc.

Theoretical scenario: Let us say one side has 10 mex in base and other side has ten mex outside base area. Clearly, layout matters travel time is the kicker.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
(edited 12 years ago)
quote:
Asymmetry height maps are one thing. Asymmetry metal maps are something else entirely.
Lets say we have a whole map that is sloped. I start on the higher end of the slope while you start on the lower end. Now my units can reach your base faster than your units can reach my base because your units are slowed down when they are moving upwards. Units that gain longer range when they are higher up than their target like Hammers also give me an advantage on my side.
You can clearly see that I get an advantage from starting on the higher end of the slope.
Now what if you get more metal on your side to compensate for fighting an uphill battle?
At some point, depending on the the amount of extra metal income that you can easily claim for yours, it will balance my high ground advantage.

Terrain advantages and resource distributions are not separate entities for balancing a map.
+0 / -0
USrankJasper
12 years ago
Asymmetry maps are hard to balance.

Units and how they are balanced can have a big impact.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
quote:
I dont feel that boxes fully fix it more travel time from rear harder to defend etc.

Theoretical scenario: Let us say one side has 10 mex in base and other side has ten mex outside base area. Clearly, layout matters travel time is the kicker.
Usually you want to start as close to the enemy as you can. By starting closer to the enemy you can contest mexes further into map and deny more mexes from the enemy.
Mexes that are behind your base can be shielded by your base and when the enemy tries to go around your base it gives you more time to intercept them and protect your mexes.

In the case of Archers Valley the south player have more area behind him that has lower value because there aren't as many mexes there.
Is there an advantage or disadvantage to having more space behind your base?
I don't know. It could go both ways I'd say.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
quote:
Asymmetry maps are hard to balance.

Units and how they are balanced can have a big impact.
I totally agree.
But just because it is hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
+0 / -0
USrankJasper
12 years ago
(edited 12 years ago)
Expect in zero-k half of your team to start at the rear of the box no matter what.

I would say that undefended rear mex is a disadvantage if your line ever fails or you just moved units to the other side and some raiders get through. Or someone makes athena and fleas etc.
+0 / -0
SErank[Er0]Godde
12 years ago
quote:
Expect in zero-k half of your team to start at the rear of the box no matter what.
We can't balance for bad choices. :P

quote:
I would say that undefended rear mex is a disadvantage if your line ever fails or you just moved units to the other side and some raiders get through. Or someone makes athena and fleas etc.
Yeah but as I said raiders are easier to intercept if they have to go around or through your base to reach mexes behind your base.
Lategame there is also the option to make singus in the back without risking your whole base blowing up.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (36 records)