|
First, I apologize if this is in the incorrect forum, I haven't used them much on this site and am thus unfamiliar with the exact layout.
Regardless, having watched professional Starcraft for over a year now (and played quite badly for much longer than that) I am wondering whether there have been any attempts to make maps that are not completely or nearly symmetrical. If they could be properly balanced I would see the following advantages:
1) Adding variety to mirror matchups by forcing some differences to expansion. Given the distressing frequency of mirror matchups this season I'm ready to support anything that would make them more interesting.
2) Allowing terrain and resource position to take a competing role in map balance, perhaps having an uphill map but giving the low ground base a better resource supply.
3) Forcing strategy adaptation based not just on scouting the opponent, but on the relative strengths of the spawn point as well. This would force a greater number of strategies to be practiced per map to prepare for several different positions.
The problem, of course, is balancing the maps. Mirror matchups would no longer be automatically balanced, and there would be even more difficulties in non mirror matches. If this has been actually attempted before and found to be unfeasible then it makes sense to have dropped the idea, but if it was considering impossible on spec I think it would be reasonable to take another look at it. I doubt that given all we've learned about Starcraft it would be out of the realm of possibility to make a single asymmetric map that balances properly.
Also, this is entirely unrelated, but I think it would be cool to have a main with minerals double-deep, with the main mineral line blocking (by mineral proximity) a second mineral line several map squares into a box canyon or something similar. It would leave expansions just as necessary to maintain a proper resource stream, but would delay mining out the main significantly. Diagram below: m = minerals, --- and | = wall, v v = gas, M = Hatchery/CC/Nexus, ... = filler, the post compresses extra whitespace
-----m-----...........v v
|m...........m
|m...........m......M
|m...........m
-----m---------m....m
|
Yes, Fantasy and Fantasy II we're tried a few seasons ago. Map sucked imo, most MU's being a complete tossup.
|
|
|
Good god, Fantasy II is one ugly map. It nearly looks randomly generated.
And Baekmagoji doesn't quite have what I was talking about. My plan was to put the second mineral line further in so that it would be more vulnerable to harassment, and far enough that a zerg would build a second hatchery to be closer and a Terran would move the command center.
|
|
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
dunno why everyone bashes on Fantasy, it's such a great map
|
Hmmm...looking back through the map database it seems the baseline for map balance is lower than I thought. Only ten of the thirty seven maps played by progamers with any frequency since the start of the year (Holy World, Holy World SE, Byzantium 2, Python, Nostalgia, Tau Cross, Outsider, Andromeda, Colosseum II, and Heartbreak Ridge) have less than a 20 point spread for all 3 of the matchups, and the first three of those have hardly any games.
On a side note, why are forty one maps listed as having been played under the TLPD Maps index, but four of them show no games? Are they added when they are introduced, not when they are first played?
|
United States43598 Posts
On November 28 2009 17:08 konadora wrote:
dunno why everyone bashes on Fantasy, it's such a great map
At the very least it was part of one of the best starleagues.
|
Germany2762 Posts
i really liked fanatasy. the only problem was the top left postion. it was so easy to defend, especially for terran. that was my impression at least...
|
Terran got slaughtered on that map according to the stats, so I don't think that's correct.
|
|
|
Most of the maps aren't perfectly symmetric, even if they look so. For example, in ZvP on Destination I always preffer the bottom expansion because you can fill 3rd base gap with evo chamber/hydra den, not the extra sunken/spore. Anyway, it's pretty hard for progamers to prepare gameplans for mirror maps, so imagine the insanity of preparations on the ones you are offering. Like if theres 4 spawning locations, they would have to prepare 24 different gameplans o.0 (4!=4*3*2*1=24).
|
On November 28 2009 18:16 jhNz wrote:
i really liked fanatasy. the only problem was the top left postion. it was so easy to defend, especially for terran. that was my impression at least...
Nostalgia main is better imo, Xenosky main is kinda vulnerable to drops
|
|
|
I really liked Fantasy II. I wished there were a few more maps like it (maybe one out of every ten new maps).
|
|
|
some months ago i hated the idea of having position imbalances
but now ive realized that most maps r imbalanced in mu however it doesnt change the fact that top gamers still manage to make the maps look in favor of the statisticly disfavored map, like flash on katrina for example ^^
id love if they made a new asymmetric map but not too imbalanced xd
|
It was the pre version to Götterdämmerung. Is this what you meant by in base expansion?
|
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
Haha, I think most of you are too new (read: not a dinosaur like me  ) to remember Alchemist. What a godawful map, but it did have a couple really cool games on it, believe it or not.
|
On November 28 2009 22:09 EvilTeletubby wrote:Haha, I think most of you are too new (read: not a dinosaur like me ) to remember Alchemist. What a godawful map, but it did have a couple really cool games on it, believe it or not.
I remember this! ZvP was fun ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/(2)Storm(n).jpg)
