EPTThink about the map pool. Think about Shakuras Plateau. Simplify it. High ground main, ramp down to natural, both at map edge, ramp to open area, base wedged outside of main and natural, another base straight vertical, rest of the map is wide the fuck open. Unique feature, instead of completely open all the way through, the middle has walls that pinch it like an hour glass.
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/b/ba/Shakuras_Plateau_2.0.jpg/400px-Shakuras_Plateau_2.0.jpg)
Now think of every single other map in use. How many maps CAN'T fit into that description? \
tal'darim? eh move the wedged optional third to a wall and it's the same map with a bigger middle and your natural gets sieged diagonally instead of vertically. There's a gap between the main and third instead of high ground so you get drop play in your main instead of drop play in your main. oh wait.
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2assistant.com/pics/maps/taldarim_altar.jpg)
okay, maybe the issue is size then. so make a smaller map in your head. it automatically looks like itd be more of a strong two base map but it turns out that if you took that same idea of shakuras, only made two possible mains, and just split the map in half...youd have a narrow as shit, vertical or horizontal thing with your third on a wall like shakuras third, and your pocket possible third would have to move up because there's just not room unless we make it a long map...in which case we just made atlantis spaceship. if we stick with the idea of shorter map, well the area is still probably open or has a cute wall in the middle to try to give the illusion that it's not open..but it's a small as shit map so that little wall doesn't really matter...and we have ohana and dual sight.
And then we get to the point: so maps are kind of the same, what's the problem? THe problem is that the game has developed by the maps. We had walled off mains, we did one base play. We had non-walled off mains on extremely short maps we did one base play or bunkered/cannoned HARD and did one base play with 2 bases. We started macroing better and that two base play started to look more like proper two base play. Then we got thirds, and so on. All through this though, the actual space we play in has been this wide open garbage area to just throw units at eachother. Positioning only matters when we can force a player INTO that position, or when we are FORCED to think about our position (beyond, "Oh, what units go at the front?") because of the actual terrain.
What maps have actually attempted to deal with that to force different engagements? To make players develop beyond our "Hey I've got a deathball!" "Whoa me too!!!! Let's fight!!!" Very fucking few. Sure players have sort of done it on their own, in the way of, "Hey I'm gonna have really harrass based play", or "Hey I'm going to do something with blink to abuse this high ground low ground", or "hey I'm going to sit siege tanks at your third because it's RIGHT by your main and slowly march in from the side." That's all fine and good. That all should be looked at REGARDLESS of the map. But that's not what I'm talking about. Maps should be taken advantage of no matter what. The problem is that nothing in the map design disallows or encourages or has encouraged people to move away from massive deathballs.
Maybe Crossfire is okay to look at. Lots of weird middle space. No way to fit your whole army unless you put everything in big lines. Lots of different close attack paths that were still seperated. A few side angles to come from. BUT it was a small as shit map. But if you did commit to a fight you probably couldn't get away well because there was no location even AT your base to really get positioning. But it was an attempt.
I'd like to see more attempts actually get considered.
I don't think all maps needs to be maze-like terrible cluster-fucks (or any, for that matter), but I do think that the main reason people have been so focused on just macro-play, and just big-ball who has the better composition play, relying completely on their ability to remax or their opponents inability to remax, is that positioning can't really be used well right now, and positioning doesn't at all limit people from simply throwing weight at eachother in the mid and late-games.
Maybe more corridors, more high ground you CAN land units on, more high ground you CAN'T land units on (or fly air units over), more chokes, more round-about attack paths, maps that experiment with NO real middle, maps that experiment with lots of high and low ground (hills), maps that use towers better than "hey here's some vision of the middle," more grass, just...I don't know.
It's not just an issue of, "Ideally a tournament should have a ______ map, a ______ map, a _____ map, a ______ map, etc...It's that our current pools and trends of map design all cater to beanbag chair throwing, and it only limits the potential complexity and depth of play.
-
Also, obligatory: "Maps hurting the game is hurting the game, is hurting my game, which is hurting the game."
