|
Map Control
Map control is central to StarCraft:BroodWar. Most of the games people lose at the lower levels of StarCraft occur because of an error of judgement regarding who has map control. When watching StarCraft:BroodWar VODs, map control is central to understanding the weaknesses and strengths of pro players' strategies. More than that, understanding map control is what will enable one to make up logical strategies of his or her own.
A Standard Example of Low Level Misjudgements
Imagine it's midgame in a PvZ. It doesn't matter how many bases either player has, or what their unit compositions are. The Protoss moves out to attack, and the Zerg responds by sending his whole army to fight it. The Zerg loses his army, and the Protoss proceeds to kill an expo. Why did the Zerg lose?
If you aren't thinking about map control, and you just played this game, you're probably thinking 'damn it!' and rightly so. 'Why did I lose? Didn't I make the right units? Didn't I keep my money low? Was there a place I could have made more drones earlier?' The answer to all those questions is maybe. But I didn't give the details of the army for a reason. Let's assume Zerg did everything as well as his opponent up to that point in the game. Even if he didn't, it wouldn't affect the decision he is supposed to make in this scenario. The fact of the matter is that Protoss has map control at this point. That's a hard thing to deal with as a Zerg, cause you're thinking you have more expos so you should have control of the map, but it's the truth of the situation. When Protoss has map control, by very definition your army is not strong enough to beat his. If he attacks with his army you have to make a judgement about whether or not you can defend it just by delaying for more units, or if you need to build sunkens to stop it. This will depend on your build, but this is absolutely the only way for Zerg to stay in the game.
Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend.
In really newbie games this cycle goes on endlessly. One player gets map control, then immediately gives it back to the other player by charging into cannons/sunkens/lurkers/storm whatever. When you start playing against better players, however, you get immediately punished for these moves. You think at first 'I'm just not macroing well enough' or 'I'm just not microing well enough,' but the critical flaw in strategy usually revolves around a misunderstanding of who has map control (or a total absence of consideration for it).
In Pro Matches
All pros in BroodWar understand very well who has map control exactly when and for how long. All pros understand that when fast expanding, they are necessarily offering map control to their opponent. What keeps the player from going crazy with their map control is the various tech paths the player without map control is threatening.
In ZvP Dark Templar are a constant, palpable threat for the Zerg. Expand too much and you can't protect your bases from a single unit. Dark Templar are a unit that threatens to take back map control from a Zerg who is too greedy. Even if the Protoss player doesn't build them, that threat is always guiding Zerg.
Remember what I said about map control shifting from one player to another throughout the course of a game? How do you think this applies to ZvP? When a Zerg is choosing his third expo, he knows that eventually he is going to lose map control. Eventually the Protoss is going to get enough Templar, enough Zealots, enough Dragoons off two base that he will simply not be able to stop the Protoss from moving out and taking his third. As must be common knowledge, Zerg don't like being on the same number of bases as Protoss. It's uncouth. So what does Zerg want in a map when expanding?
The answer, as you've seen in countless progames, is that the Zerg wants a third which can be used to protect his fourth. When the Zerg loses map control in the midgame, the most efficient way to keep the Protoss from crushing his expos is just to build a bunch of sunkens. But sunkens don't win back map control. They put you farther behind, as a matter of fact. The counter to this is if they can take their 4th expo without it being threatened by the Protoss, they're back ahead in expos and it's still difficult for toss to take a fourth.
I apologise if this is incredibly tedious, or obvious, but I think you'll find if you start thinking about map control throughout a game, instead of just as specific situations such as 'I have muta so Terran can't move out now' you will find your experience of BroodWar and watching BroodWar enriched. There are many cases of map control where build orders and standard tech switches have already been made. There are many cases where you want to know 'why does this work?' There are many times when you should know why an aggressive one-base strategy is so risky and why the defending player is not necessarily behind if he loses a lot defending it. It's not just economy. It's the map control that allows you to have that economy. It's the map control that gives you the ability to deceive your opponent. Protoss can't get a probe outside of his main? Suddenly the Zerg feels a lot more comfortable. Suddenly the Zerg doesn't have to worry about being surprised. Suddenly the Protoss does.
This is why if one players army is defending a base, the other's should usually be out on the map. If both players are out on the map, but battles aren't occurring, it's because one is avoiding the other. Threatening expos as the game gets more complex and map control is given to each player as percentages. I control the ground, so you can't attack me directly, but you control my vision, so your drops are threatening. I control the centre of the map because it is wide open, but you control any narrow area you can get to because I don't have dark swarm yet. This is how map control works, and this is the basis of all strategy.
For Some Reason
I feel like this is too obvious. But I've played BroodWar so long that it's become just a natural way of thinking about the game. And I know people still post replays of themselves asking 'why did I lose' when this is almost always the answer. Sometimes people lose map control because they are just too slow at teching, or their macro is bad, sure, but lots of times your opponent's wasn't much better. Some of map control is taught to newbies with Artosis' iconic phrase 'when you're ahead, get more ahead' but that leaves out so many important aspects of map control.
I remember long ago how enlightening, how wonderful it was to learn about map control in it's most fundamental ideas. Everyone knows Terran need vessels to move out against a lot of lurkers. Everyone knows mutas can keep Terran pinned into his base for a little while. But those are such specific situations, when the idea of map control is so much more general than that. Map control is a constantly present factor in BroodWar. If you have it, you need to know you have it so you can take advantage of it and expand. If you don't have it, you need to know that so you don't move out and lose all your shit. Make drones to make money. It's that fundamental to the game. It will raise your understanding of matches so much higher if you haven't grasped it yet.
In any case, I hope at least some people get something from this post. I'm not the best player by any means, but I do feel like I have a strong understanding of the game. If anything, even if you already understood it, maybe you'll think about it more the next few VODs that you watch ^^
 
|
Liquipedia this in the map control secton pls :D Gonna read it once more.
|
Probably a more insightful example of mapcontrol than anything I wrote up there occurs in low level TvZs all the time. Terran has a big army that can beat Zergs army directly. Terran thinks 'ok, time to mess with the Zerg' and he attacks a fringe expo. Zerg counters his main and does way more damage than losing his one expo cost him. This is Terran thinking he has map control, but he's actually giving his map control up by putting his army out of position. Zerg just counters and expos somewhere else, and it's a really strong move because of this. Of course, if Terran can defend his base and attack at the same time, then that is truer, or at least stronger map control.
|
Croatia9506 Posts
This is pretty good article. Just today I was writing some post about a 2v2 and map control is even more important there!
But in 1v1, map control + position advantage is one of the main reasons to losing or winning a game.
|
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
|
On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map?
|
Really great read. Will definitely make an effort to identify the shifts in map control from now on.
|
Sweet thank you for this!
|
Croatia9506 Posts
On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
Did you even read the article?
Scratch that, did you even read the FIRST sentence?
|
What I meant is that air forces are almost needed in any midgame where terran has latched onto an highyield expansion with a PF.
I went on a rant that wasn't really related to the post, my mistake. Map control isn't something that spoken off very much in starcraft 2.
"In really newbie games this cycle goes on endlessly. One player gets map control, then immediately gives it back to the other player by charging into cannons/sunkens/lurkers/storm whatever. "
I'm guessing this is me.
|
Great article, map control is an important component in Brood War. I should be practicing this with Vultures and mines, trying to lay mines everywhere.
|
Belgium9947 Posts
On January 11 2011 11:08 2Pacalypse- wrote:
This is pretty good article. Just today I was writing some post about a 2v2 and map control is even more important there!
But in 1v1, map control + position advantage is one of the main reasons to losing or winning a game.
yeah in BW map control was everything in 2v2, just because of the tactical aspect of being able to isolate armies.
2v2 in SC2 on these shared bases maps is fucked up though. It completely ruins what was different about 2v2, and team work seems to play an even smaller role. I guess they could fix it with maps though
|
Chef, great article my man! 
|
On January 11 2011 10:58 Chef wrote:
Probably a more insightful example of mapcontrol than anything I wrote up there occurs in low level TvZs all the time. Terran has a big army that can beat Zergs army directly. Terran thinks 'ok, time to mess with the Zerg' and he attacks a fringe expo. Zerg counters his main and does way more damage than losing his one expo cost him. This is Terran thinking he has map control, but he's actually giving his map control up by putting his army out of position. Zerg just counters and expos somewhere else, and it's a really strong move because of this. Of course, if Terran can defend his base and attack at the same time, then that is truer, or at least stronger map control.
Are you referring to Jaedong vs Baby? That was a perfect example to what you said. And I agree completely.
I always thought it might be a good idea for Terran to send a small force, maybe a DS's worth of MMF to hunt down expos while keeping the main force for map control, but the smaller group might get eaten alive by mutaling or even just lings. It's definitely a tricky problem in TvZ.
|
I sort of knew this, but this is a good and thought provoking article and I'm going to think about map control more after reading this. Thanks, Chef!
|
On January 11 2011 11:42 Advocado wrote:What I meant is that air forces are almost needed in any midgame where terran has latched onto an highyield expansion with a PF. I went on a rant that wasn't really related to the post, my mistake. Map control isn't something that spoken off very much in starcraft 2. Show nested quote +"In really newbie games this cycle goes on endlessly. One player gets map control, then immediately gives it back to the other player by charging into cannons/sunkens/lurkers/storm whatever. " I'm guessing this is me.
You were just told to read the first sentence of the blog. If you actually did that, you'd realize how stupid you sound right now.
+ Show Spoiler +This is about Brood War, so PFs have no relevance here.
Anyway, as for the OP and about map control:
I agree with most of what you're saying. I think that, generally, it's hard for a lot of players to recognize that they have map control (or don't) in the heat and pace of the game, and so they sometimes play contrarily to how they should.
Even pros are susceptible to this because SC is not a game of full information. If you're unaware of something, you generally don't know your exact state in relation to your opponent. If you believe you're ahead, for example, and you think you have control of the map, you might try to expand. If your assessment is wrong, though, this is a terrible decision and an aware opponent will punish you severely.
|
Great insight, thanks for this! This definitely needs to be on liquipedia for those still aspiring to be BW gamers! :D Will definitely think about this next time I watch SWL.
|
On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map?
Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up!
Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p
edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter.
btw, great blog Chef 
|
On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map? Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up! Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter. btw, great blog Chef
I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything.
The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.
In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.
This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure.
In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway.
|
On January 11 2011 15:06 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map? Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up! Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter. btw, great blog Chef I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything. The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays. In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small. This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure. In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway.
Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here:
Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend.
Your points here:
The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.
In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.
Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth.
I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process.
Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true".
|
|
|
On January 11 2011 15:36 emperorchampion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 15:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map? Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up! Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter. btw, great blog Chef I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything. The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays. In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small. This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure. In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway. Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here: Show nested quote +Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend. Your points here: Show nested quote +The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.
In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small. Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth. I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process. Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true".
Again, I disagree.
Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map.
As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react.
The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool.
As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression.
The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game.
Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak.
None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2.
|
That was a very good read. It makes me sad that SC2 is so far off from where BW is (was?).
Going to go watch some BW.
|
Great read Chef - map control of course is one of the most difficult to apply skills in the game (when you realize you can take it and when you realize you should back off, of course) While it replays its very observable, its hard to have the sense of when map control should exchange between players, and when its appropriate to push and whatnot (unless, of course, you are blindly following a korean build, which you might get consistently lucky if you time it well)
|
I'm sorry, I should have noticed that the topic was mainly aimed towards Brood War and not SC2.
Dis regard what I have said.
|
On January 12 2011 11:19 Advocado wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have noticed that the topic was mainly aimed towards Brood War and not SC2.
Dis regard what I have said.
It's not that the topic of map control is inherently irrelevant to SC2 - it's just that overall, SC2 isn't at the level *yet* where it matters like it did in BW. And yes, I would argue that because of things like PF, Warpgates, and small maps, map control isn't as important right now in SC2, but that's not necessarily set in stone.
Hopefully we'll see SC2 develop into a game where this topic will be quite relevant
|
Very insightful. It has been enlightening to read this.
|
On January 11 2011 16:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 15:36 emperorchampion wrote:On January 11 2011 15:06 wherebugsgo wrote:On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?
It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.
wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map? Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up! Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter. btw, great blog Chef I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything. The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays. In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small. This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure. In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway. Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here: Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend. Your points here: The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.
In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small. Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth. I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process. Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true". + Show Spoiler +Again, I disagree.
Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map.
As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react.
The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool.
As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression.
The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game.
Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak.
None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2.
Ok, I see your point now. I'm not throughly convinced that map-control is mostly useless, but whatever. I'm curious on how you think SC2 will develop in the future. Do you think the new GSL maps will create more dynamic game play, or is it more of an issue with the game it self? Personally, I'm not really sure how it will play out- some of the maps seem to encourage expanding and longer games, but I don't know if that will stop these powerful all-ins.
|
On January 11 2011 10:58 Chef wrote:
Probably a more insightful example of mapcontrol than anything I wrote up there occurs in low level TvZs all the time. Terran has a big army that can beat Zergs army directly. Terran thinks 'ok, time to mess with the Zerg' and he attacks a fringe expo. Zerg counters his main and does way more damage than losing his one expo cost him. This is Terran thinking he has map control, but he's actually giving his map control up by putting his army out of position. Zerg just counters and expos somewhere else, and it's a really strong move because of this. Of course, if Terran can defend his base and attack at the same time, then that is truer, or at least stronger map control.
This is a great example of how real game map control is much more complex than the binary model of either one player or the other having it.
You see, the unit/ball movement speeds, or reaction speeds are what define map control in game, and because of their large variance, map control in real game is a very complex nonlinear system. IE the crackling raids/doom drops that zerg can do in late game even if not having direct army vs army map control, purely because of the insane movement speed of cracklings/ultras or hidden large number of overlords.
In fact, utilizing the binary model of map control is the reason why many zergs lose, even at pro level. They fail to understand that despite not having ability to take on enemy army, because of insane damage and speed of cracklings/positional control of lurker defiler, they can get around it because of racial advantage. Look at the latest game of JD vs Baby for example of this. JD was almost dead, baby couldve crushed his army in a head on battle, but utilizing position control of lurker swarm(and other godly multitasking of the few units he had) and slow reaction due to slow movement of m&m ball, he could deny baby's nat from mining and come back into the game
|
I love this topic because bw TvZ is such an awesome match up. I think the example you gave of lower level TvZ is just more about the natural shifts in flow of standard bio TvZ, though. I'm sure everyone knows this but, zerg intially has map control because bare marines generally can't do anything vs speedlings. Then terran somewhat gains map control once academy tech is out (barring any kind of speedling backstab threat). Then map control shifts back to zerg when mutas are out, depending on terran's build. I mean, terran should at some point gain map control again during the muta harass (before lurkers are out) and pressure or deny zerg's third and I wouldn't necessarily say they're giving up map control by doing so. It's just a window of time in which the terran has the advantage that he is making use of. I guess the issue is that "lower level" terrans don't think of the possibility of a main counter and don't prepare a well enough defense. And zerg still will not have complete map control at this point b/c terran will have MM still roaming around the map.
|
Very well thought out and well written. Yet the concept is amazingly hard to apply, and I'm not sure even the pros know how to word it like this. This should be in liquidpedia somewhere.
|
OMG Awesome!!! This blog is a light to the complete darkness of my noobie existence.
Thanks a lot!
|
I enjoyed the article, I don't think it was too low-level. The explanations were solid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
