Avexyli Profile Blog Joined April 2014 United States 686 Posts #1



Alright, on to Backwater and its.. water.



Currently the middle and fifth bases are submerged in a dark green water, and it's a bit hard to see where creep actually reaches once it's down there. This is an issue both for Zergs and non-Zergs. Zergs who are trying to spread creep can't optimally put their creep tumors on the edge of creep because they can't see it. Terrans and Protoss who are trying to take engagements can't figure out where the creep starts, and obviously any additional second that a Zerg is on creep will favor them in an engagement.



Currently the plan I have suggested is to decrease the tint of the creep on the map by about 40% while removing the color falloff and alpha of the water completely. Here are two pictures of the planned change, with before and after.



Before:







After:







While it's not perfect, I think it's the best option to improve visibility without going too far in other areas, such as making creep too dark and pretty ugly on the dry land, or killing the aesthetic of the map completely. Other options were to raise the water to have the water appear more clear and less affected by fog, but it would obscure smaller units like Zerglings and Broodlings.



Next, I'd like to talk about the biggest feature of the map, the pocket third base. It seems most players I talk to are pretty fond of this map. The pocket third does a few things differently than an inbase natural would that I'll try to point out. Firstly, though inbase naturals and this pocket third both hold three bases behind one choke, one of the key differences is the distance to defend between the three bases. In an inbase natural map like Acolyte, there is considerable distance for ground armies to traverse (and often through their own simcity as well) in comparison to the aggression that comes towards them. In Backwater, there is less distance to defend between the natural and third, and the main is exposed in a standard manner. Backwater's third has a reaper cliff and overlord spot to enable ease of scouting for each race (arguably protoss would have the most difficulty here, but with the availability of adept shades, warp prisms, oracles and observers I'm not super concerned).



I think most of us here will agree that this third base is pretty safe. However, we've recently seen that there is a liberator spot that cannot be reached by ground armies for this third base. Blizzard as well as myself and a few others have talked about whether or not this is a good thing to have. Naturally, liberator spots are worse the earlier on they are, and I actually had this talk with Blizzard when it came to a Liberator spot on Blackpink at the vertical fourth. The consensus was that because it was a fourth base, units that would handle liberators would likely already be out in play, so the spot wasn't as important to be concerned with. For Backwater however, it's a third, but this third base is really safe in almost every other manner. We ended up agreeing that the lib spot is probably fine, since it's a bit of a sacrifice and method of harassment for an otherwise incredibly safe third.



Last thing about the third base, thanks to reddit user Poza, we've found that a siege spot was unintentionally left in post-TLMC iteration. In this spot, the geyser and town hall could be attacked from down below in the water. This was something I thought I had already fixed, but we're already going to be addressing it by slightly narrowing the small area adjacent to the third where the siegespot is. It's unlikely this will change anything regarding any engagements in this spot, but this is what the change will look like:



Before:







After:











Now, I already know that someone's going to ask why a siege spot from tanks is going to be addressed but not a liberator spot. I'm not a GM nor will I pretend to be, but I'll try my best to explain the thought process.



For the liberator range spot. only a bit of a spot of the mineral line is being denied until units that can deal with it are available. The build that was seen used in an abusive manner was not scouted and pretty early compared to say the average time lib range would be upgraded in your regular TvP. I'm always pro-meta shifts rather than direct changes if need be, and the reason I'm saying this is because I'm seeing many neat things regarding this third base, such as Zergs taking it as their natural first, or taking the diagonal third first and then having a safe fourth for gas heavy builds. I like the liberator spot being there to punish greed or as a response to different strategies, and if it was an average TvP, there would be units that can deal with this spot.



The tank, unlike the liberator does deal splash damage and can actually attack the structures, denying a gas (especially a third base gas) can be incredibly important in different matchups. When this map was entering iteration phase, I was attempting to speak to different Terrans once the original siege spot appeared. Fortunately, Optimus from Revolution was a great hand in helping out some of the mappers during TLMC9 and he gave his opinion on this spot. I no loner have the direct quote, but I recall the discussion of a Terran's siege strength in that spot in primarily TvT, but that it would likely apply to other matchups as well.



Imagining this scenario below, I don't see any reasonable way for the red player to break this siege point with similar supply and army composition. While it's true the composition is not on a highground, the blue players positioning with that choke would likely make engagement with the red player incredibly difficult.







TLDR:

Fixing the water to be lighter and creep be darker.



Liberator spot is fine because it's an interesting response to many different options with the third base, units will likely be able to deal with it in a standard lib range timing, it's not as abusable as say dusk towers in the natural.



Siege spot below the third will be fixed.



Thank optiheh.





Thanks for reading.



- AVEX Hey y'all, figured I'd post here since I've posted everywhere else. I wanted to address my ladder map Backwater and the discussions I've had with Blizzard. Blizzard has been really great at receiving feedback when it comes to my map, first with Blackpink's reaper cliff, and now with Backwater's issues. I was also able to communicate the issues of visibility with Catalyst's reaper cliff last season, so I think we're on a pretty good track..Alright, on to Backwater and its.. water.Currently the middle and fifth bases are submerged in a dark green water, and it's a bit hard to see where creep actually reaches once it's down there. This is an issue both for Zergs and non-Zergs. Zergs who are trying to spread creep can't optimally put their creep tumors on the edge of creep because they can't see it. Terrans and Protoss who are trying to take engagements can't figure out where the creep starts, and obviously any additional second that a Zerg is on creep will favor them in an engagement.Currently the plan I have suggested is to decrease the tint of the creep on the map by about 40% while removing the color falloff and alpha of the water completely. Here are two pictures of the planned change, with before and after.Before:After:While it's not perfect, I think it's the best option to improve visibility without going too far in other areas, such as making creep too dark and pretty ugly on the dry land, or killing the aesthetic of the map completely. Other options were to raise the water to have the water appear more clear and less affected by fog, but it would obscure smaller units like Zerglings and Broodlings.Next, I'd like to talk about the biggest feature of the map, the pocket third base. It seems most players I talk to are pretty fond of this map. The pocket third does a few things differently than an inbase natural would that I'll try to point out. Firstly, though inbase naturals and this pocket third both hold three bases behind one choke, one of the key differences is the distance to defend between the three bases. In an inbase natural map like Acolyte, there is considerable distance for ground armies to traverse (and often through their own simcity as well) in comparison to the aggression that comes towards them. In Backwater, there is less distance to defend between the natural and third, and the main is exposed in a standard manner. Backwater's third has a reaper cliff and overlord spot to enable ease of scouting for each race (arguably protoss would have the most difficulty here, but with the availability of adept shades, warp prisms, oracles and observers I'm not super concerned).I think most of us here will agree that this third base issafe. However, we've recently seen that there is a liberator spot that cannot be reached by ground armies for this third base. Blizzard as well as myself and a few others have talked about whether or not this is a good thing to have. Naturally, liberator spots are worse the earlier on they are, and I actually had this talk with Blizzard when it came to a Liberator spot on Blackpink at the vertical fourth. The consensus was that because it was a fourth base, units that would handle liberators would likely already be out in play, so the spot wasn't as important to be concerned with. For Backwater however, it's a third, but this third base is really safe in almost every other manner. We ended up agreeing that the lib spot is probably fine, since it's a bit of a sacrifice and method of harassment for an otherwise incredibly safe third.Last thing about the third base, thanks to reddit user Poza, we've found that a siege spot was unintentionally left in post-TLMC iteration. In this spot, the geyser and town hall could be attacked from down below in the water. This was something I thought I had already fixed, but we're already going to be addressing it by slightly narrowing the small area adjacent to the third where the siegespot is. It's unlikely this will change anything regarding any engagements in this spot, but this is what the change will look like:Before:After:Now, I already know that someone's going to ask why a siege spot from tanks is going to be addressed but not a liberator spot. I'm not a GM nor will I pretend to be, but I'll try my best to explain the thought process.For the liberator range spot. only a bit of a spot of the mineral line is being denied until units that can deal with it are available. The build that was seen used in an abusive manner was not scouted and pretty early compared to say the average time lib range would be upgraded in your regular TvP. I'm always pro-meta shifts rather than direct changes if need be, and the reason I'm saying this is because I'm seeing many neat things regarding this third base, such as Zergs taking it as their natural first, or taking the diagonal third first and then having a safe fourth for gas heavy builds. I like the liberator spot being there to punish greed or as a response to different strategies, and if it was an average TvP, there would be units that can deal with this spot.The tank, unlike the liberator does deal splash damage and can actually attack the structures, denying a gas (especially a third base gas) can be incredibly important in different matchups. When this map was entering iteration phase, I was attempting to speak to different Terrans once the original siege spot appeared. Fortunately, Optimus from Revolution was a great hand in helping out some of the mappers during TLMC9 and he gave his opinion on this spot. I no loner have the direct quote, but I recall the discussion of a Terran's siege strength in that spot in primarily TvT, but that it would likely apply to other matchups as well.Imagining this scenario below, I don't see any reasonable way for the red player to break this siege point with similar supply and army composition. While it's true the composition is not on a highground, the blue players positioning with that choke would likely make engagement with the red player incredibly difficult.TLDR:Thanks for reading.- AVEX AVEX - 1st place TLMC8 & 9 (and 3rd and 4th, respectively), 2nd place TLMC11, 3x Finalist of TLMC7 (5th), 3x Finalist of TLMC10 (5th)