Here is my take on bigger maps (I’ve been making melee maps for about 10 years now, give or take a few breaks in between). I tend to think of map attributes basically in terms of buffs/nerfs so I can better think about balance. I spend more time thinking about map making nowadays than actually doing it, though :0
Nothing is stopping anybody from making 3 player or even 4 player maps bigger than 128x128. Part of it is you don’t really need any size bigger than 128x128 for a well executed map. Players and map makers have gotten used to distances and the game timings (rushes, Econ build defense, etc.) that come with the “standard” map sizes, so it makes sense to stick to those and introduce more things that players are unfamiliar with. Too many unfamiliar elements and more players on average will reject it, although it might have more potential for experimentation.
Another aspect of using larger maps is that they slow the pace of the game. As I said before, longer distances impede aggressive strategies, making some rushes not viable or giving the defending player more time to prepare for an attack. This can become a problem in balance in some matchups since every non-mirror match up is a fight between a more mobile army vs a less mobile army. There has to be a balance in linear vs nonlinear pathing/chokes vs open areas/multiple paths vs one path. The bigger the map, the bigger the problems a less mobile army has vs the opposing more mobile force. In TvP for example, a very open map with large distances makes it difficult for a Terran to navigate from their initial push to the enemy’s base without being outflanked and taking a disadvantageous engage or simply having their army circumvented and their base counterattacked. You can then make arguments on whether vultures become much more powerful in larger map settings, although they aren’t necessarily a terran’s main force. However, it is widely accepted that in terms of mobility the hierarchy goes Z>P>T. Mobility doesn’t always translate to a secure win, but I can make an argument in more outplay potential.
Related to the mobility issue is that air units become more effective in relation to ground units the more complex the terrain on the map is. In larger maps, this effect is amplified. We all know that the shortest path between 2 points is a line... so it stands to reason that as nonlinear distances (ground distances) become longer, linear distances (air distances) become more advantageous by comparison. Then you have to think about how this affects racial balance since all 3 races have different air units and requirements to get them.
These are a few things to consider with bigger maps.
Now let’s talk about execution. At first glance the best way to create a symmetrical 3 player map is to use an equilateral triangle with a point in the center of the map as the center of the triangle as a template for distances and proportions. Now, if you were to rotate this triangle 360 degrees around the center point, you’d see the edges of the triangle effectively make a circle. But StarCraft maps are not circular, they are square or rectangular. If you make your 3 player map “perfectly” symmetrical (which is not possible with isometric tiles and an angled top-down perspective anyways), the corners are wasted. So fitting a circle inside a square results in wasted space, especially in the corners. Now some people disagree here in terms of wasted space = a bad thing, but I am in the camp that thinks it is overall a bad thing. It is not bad in the sense that it is an outright “wrong”, something that almost everyone agrees is a bad thing (like making every base on a map in siege tank range for example). I think of it as wasted potential, unless the “unused space” has a purpose, then it is not necessarily wasted. Another way to think about it is opportunity cost. What could that space be alternatively used for? If the space is repurposed with little to no negative effects on gameplay and instead makes the map overall better, then it is a worthwhile change. Keep in mind that some empty space is important. I’m mostly talking about the corners of 3 player maps on 128x128 here, but it is not limited to that. I’ll talk about nonstandard 3 player map layouts like Outsider, El Niño, Plasma later.
If you think your map has used all wasted space as efficiently as possible as your map concept allows, and there is still wasted space, I’d have to disagree and encourage you to reconsider. It is most likely that either your execution of your concept was not optimal, or that there were failures in the planning stages of the map concept. Perhaps your map would be better fitted on a smaller map (sizes like 128x112 or 112x128 are viable for example). I wonder if Plasma was ever initially planned as a 128x128 3-player map and then they realized a smaller size would suffice because of some of these reasons. Perhaps this will happen when you make a bigger map as well. You realize that your idea would be better fitted on a regular 128x128 map size instead of something bigger. So why bother on anything bigger? (It also means more work, something I’m not a fan of)
Here we come back to the problem of the 3 player map with a centered circle in the middle, wasting the 4 corners of the map - thank you Testbug for this advice in my early days, wherever you are now 
The simple solution? A Hexagon. A picture would save me words here but hopefully you get the idea (I’m on mobile). Or another way to think about it, 2 equilateral triangles (Jewish Star of David). You start with the three player spawns for the first triangle, roughly speaking. Then the points of the other triangle in the spaces in between the first triangle’s points. I’ll probably just show a picture here in a later edit.
This means you have to stretch part of the map into the corners, but the map will not be stretched symmetrically, so this creates problems of positional imbalances if not executed correctly. It ultimately comes down to the map maker and their ability to compromise on different areas of the map without sacrificing gameplay. Add to this the layer of technical limitations (ramps and bridges don’t face every direction you want them to, isometric tile shenanigans, cliff asymmetry, different tileset limitations, etc.) and you start getting a picture of why this is difficult to pull off and why mirrored or symmetrical 2 player maps are probably the easiest to execute, and why rotational symmetry is probably one of the hardest.
However, you can circumvent some of these issues by using nonstandard map layouts like Plasma or Outsider. Sure, these maps still use rotational symmetry, but they get around the problem of the circular element of 3 player maps and instead have their concept and execution place an emphasis on the square/rectangular edges of the map. Obviously this introduces different problems, but it is definitely a nice change of flavor symmetry-wise (which I like a lot). A good question to ask I think is there some other type of weirder symmetry that would be fun to try out in a 3 player map (that isn’t game breaking)?
Anyways I’m just rambling but these are some things I like to think about when it comes to larger maps (and why I stay away from making them lol). It’s more work :/
|
EPT
