|
In my opinion, a nice map needs 3 elements: good looking, difference and exciting to watch competition.
We are going to go to the end creation of maps. Although, there are so many maps that were made these days. But they have not difference each other.
Let's look at maps in ASL, BSL, Ladder... They have 12-16 bases, a huge ground in the center that occupy than 80% map. Maps have no or have too less island/semi-island, high/low ground, flank, narrow path, special spot to drop Lurker, Tank, Dark Templar...
This is typical map in 2021
![[image loading]](https://liquipedia.net/commons/images/thumb/0/0f/Shakuras_Temple.jpeg/900px-Shakuras_Temple.jpeg)
This is typical map in 2022?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5Gn4w5A.png)
I still don't understand why people like standard maps (balance all matchup). We have map pool, best of 3/5/7, veto and tournaments. Clearly, we don't need 100% maps are standard. A nice tournament just needs to announce time and map pool. Candidates will decide to come or not. If they play, they will choose their race that they want to play (Flash chose Random to counter map pool of ASL).
Maybe you don't know that standard maps will favor Terran. This is why Terran has so much title champion, isn't Tesagi like people think.
I really would like to play these maps and watch gosu play on them
(2)Broken bridge
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wCzZVyI.jpg)
(2)Phogna Bologna
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yqhdQvv.jpg)
(2)Stupid Mind
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YMu4t2Q.jpg)
(3)White Dragons Valley
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/snlwpgy.jpg)
(3)Cool Runnings
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1sEz1AJ.jpg)
(4)Sand Castle
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AlczCpP.jpg)
(4)Holy Place of Life 0.91
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zrTrTaP.jpg)
|
Your first 3 maps are basically unplayable: Zerg will go Mutas and kill everyone or harass for 15 minutes before they tech up at a clear advantage.
There's a reason most competitions have conservative map-pools. Players can work on similar builds and optimize over a significant volume of games played, whoever finds the best strat and can execute under pressure has most to win, which is what a strategy game should be about. If you were to have those kind of random maps, everything would turn into a gimmick all-in fest (with all sorts of gotcha builds). That's nice for memes but what's the point for a high-skill player to put in the time in practicing those maps if everyone else is incentivized to just find one or two good gotcha builds that they can bust out at a later stage in a tournament?
|
I admire your passion, dude.
Keep it up.
|
A nice map should not be severely detrimental to any of the three races. That's all I'd require from a map to call it nice. 
|
We want balanced maps between races because it leads to close and exciting games. It's okay if you don't understand, because professional map makers with decades of experience do.
|
@oxKnu
StarCraft isn't simple like you think.
Practicing and preparing make you are better but it's not sure make you win games. Have you ever heard "just play like Flash", "Flash would have won"?. Although people want to become Flash. Do you know why we have no second Flash? Because we have practice and prepare but we are not real Flash. StarCraft has high personal but maps, gamers, race are basic/general and they are not important to lead win.
Every players, pro-gamers even have their own limit. In the ladder, we have veto but veto just helps avoid boring maps, it doesn't help improve our rank. Arto has 3 vetoes and he is in A rank forever. Whether he has 6 vetoes, can he take S rank? of course no. Because he can veto maps but he can't veto his iq and skill. This thing still is alive in the highest level of StarCraft. Tier 1, 2, 3 almost never changes after so many years.
When I was a child, I noted reasons why I won, I lost after my games.
I realized quickly that StarCraft has 100000000000000 reasons lead to result of a game. Because all of units in the StarCraft even have amplitude of strength. They cause so much different circumstances in the game.
If I fixed some my mistake that mean I would make some other mistakes. So note, try to do the best is impossible.
Besides that, StarCraft is a game that belongs to subconscious. Most of us who play this game from 10 to 20 years. We did some things so much time again and again. We do it automatically, don't need to think and try, just do it. Some things of them are so bad. They lead to difference of our level, don't except gosu.
Anyway, Python 1.3 was similar my 3 first maps. Firebathero beat sAviOr 2 times in 2007 GOMTV MSL Season 2/Quarterfinals. In a PL final, there was a TvT in this map instead of ZvZ.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1b09oUQ.jpg)
Horizon lunar colony in ASL season 9 was similar Python 1.3. We have statistics: TvZ 7-9 43.8%, ZvP 6-5 54.5%, PvT 3-10 23.1%.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/46Pw6kM.jpg)
|
Looking at overall matchup statistics doesn't tell you much on a 4p map. You also have to take into account, how games on different relative spawn positions play out.
Single game examples do not represent an overall trend.
Less than 20 games in a matchup is not a meaningful statistic either way.
|
@M3t4PhYzX
Thank you!
@JoinTheRain
I think you are a nice guy
@A.Alm
We are different each other from definition exciting games. With me, exciting games are surprise, hard to guess, hard to play. I don't like to watch one or two players sit their home, buy 200 units and then come out... When I was a child, I played a game with my friend. I have to play by his regulation: we would fight when one of us reach 200/200.
@ Freakling
I see you. I just want to say, we can play on many kind of maps. Most of them even are playable from 3 race.
|
Pro play (so ASL players) is substantially different compared to amateur play (A rank, lower, whatever).
If you take a pro player: P, T or Z and ask him what would be the win-rate of Protoss versus Zerg on Largo if everyone was to play 3 months on it non-stop, all of them would come up with a number that is far from 50%.
That's all it boils down to. It doesn't matter if on some map some lower rank player can clown a win against a higher ranked player.
|
Some of the maps you present do look "nice". Sandcastle's best of the bunch.
They are totally appropriate for Artosis's bad map tournament. For ASL, no thanks.
|
am a really big fun of alternative maps. I have bunned FS and CB.
Of course not all the different maps are good, but at least they are something new.
I really like HBR and BS, good maps where either the meta is a bit different or you can just do some tricks, witch forces you to know all the counters to them.
A good non standard map adds something potentialy unexpected. But it also lowers your skill. My macro is alwasy bad on island maps, or my units are not in position in time on some new maps, or i do not scaut for all the possible hidden expos. But it is all my fault. I really hope to be able to try to play on some new maps with regular people on ladder.
|
#1 map ever made
![[image loading]](https://liquipedia.net/commons/images/b/bd/Xeno_Sky.jpg)
|
Although some variety may be good, I think the outcome will be predictable for pro players. If the map is unbalanced then there will be just a single particular strategy that would benefit the most. A badly designed map would only offer monotonous gameplay.
|
Why don't you make a map for our map contest?
|
First, there is still a lot of variability possible on the same standard "boring" map. For example, different builds and strategies exist for the three different race matchups. Different spawn positions play into that 'unpredictability' factor. Different outcomes are also possible depending on how small, medium or large scale micro battles go.
Second, I think players have enough variables to control for inside the game, irrespective of the map, especially in this day and age where everything is so technical and precise. So adding in new map features can overwhelm and throw them off their game.
Third, players also have a lot of different events and leagues which they are expected to participate in. If some of them had newer/different maps, then how will the players be able to practice for their matches? Even different leagues/events with different standard "boring" maps make it difficult for players to properly train for them because of the variability in map pools. They have personal lives too and a limited amount of time to practice.
Fourth, I have not really heard any complaints from actual players about standard maps. Sure they enjoy switching things up once in a while and playing on a different map for fun or a different race matchup (or playing a UMS game). But as a rule, I believe most players are content with the standard maps. Sometimes they can even complain about some of them not being standard (boring!) enough. Most of these complaints tend to come from viewers in my experience who don't seem to always appreciate how difficult, demanding and frustrating this game is on a very high competitive level. I have always found it amusing when viewers, for example, mock S rank foreigners (for shits and giggles in streams), comparing them to Koreans in a negative light, when I am pretty sure they wouldn't even be able to get C rank themselves.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, let those who make such arguments be the first to present themselves as examples. Get to S rank and achieve a high level competitive status, and then let us hear how you want to see and play on new or different maps 
|
@oxKnu
Gosu, normal players can play different ways from all maps. That's why I said: StarCraft isn't simple like you think. Let's watch Mini played ASL 12, everyone knows he will cheese but we didn't know where and when he will do it.
My mean is kind of maps (standard or non standard) doesn't impact to how we play. Even in island maps, we doesn't know where, when and number of army that opponent will attack. Standard maps just look the same, boring, some of them are made to counter cheese. Maybe people like to play and watch marco games. I don't hate standard maps, just they shouldn't appear so much. I still enjoy games in 2001-2007.
@TMNT
I am looking forward to seeing some look nice maps from you
@ajmbek
I love alternative too. I like island bases near the main base and 3rd base was prevented by a building
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0sMxjOb.jpg)
@XenOsky
I love how Boxer played in this map (Legacy of Char)
@Lavalisk
You are still right if you mention to standard maps
@MineraIs
When I was a child, I made some maps to play with computer. Now, I know I can't make a map as good as I expect. I only play with them from 2002-2006. No one around me played StarCraft, they played Half Life and AOE. In 2006, I have Internet at home and my mind was opened.
@ox.tQ
I know opportunity cost of gosu. They don't want to spend so much their resource for minimum profit. Maybe StarCraft taught them that thing.
Finally, I still enjoy tournaments, ladder games, channel streams. Because StarCraft is my life
|
"@ox.tQ
I know opportunity cost of gosu. They don't want to spend so much their resource for minimum profit. Maybe StarCraft taught them that thing."
minimum effort, maximum profit
you nailed it 100%
|
Experimental maps are great. I think what we are forgetting though is that when they do get figured out they can be as homogeneous as fighting spirit.
How much do you need to pay washed-up ex pros to make them play on old/new maps that don't pass the smell test? Seeing some PvT on 815 or sparkle would be something I'd gladly throw 20$ down on. Maybe get some old fucks like Pusan and Nada.
|
I can see my maps. Did you get them from the Korean community?
|
My take-away from all of these type of threads is that there's always a few people that are obsessed with the aesthetics of a map. Sure, decorations, symmetry, color are all meaningful properties of a map but ultimately what matters is how the games on it play out and if they're balanced enough for competition and ladder.
In the current ladder we have two of the best maps in the history of the game: Eclipse and Polypoid.
Check out the initial impressions when those maps came out: a string of people booing them because they're not perfectly symmetric (Eclipse) and that they're another FS clone (Poly) when the reality of it, after thousands of games played is that both are perfectly playable in all matchups and at all stages of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
