|
Imagine that someone takes a typical pro-map - Python, Fighting Spirit, or anything newer and pastes it in the middle of a 256x256 map.
Then they add the map "around" the center - so instead of battles only in the middle, there are 2 or 3 routes behind. Places for expansions too.
Extended python:
Python is actually not a good example, because there is simply no way to add easy spots behind - with 1-2 routes / more expos.
However an "extended" python would look something like this:
Here's another example: a 256 x 256 concept, where the middle is a relatively standard normal map (although with more distance between mains) and there are 2 routes behind the starting points - for more expansions and more possible strategies
Note that mains need to be enlarged to block tank cheese (but still allow mutalisk harass).
More empty space would need to be added in the middle to stop easy terran pushes and allow better flanking, would also stop the problem of "too many terrans".
Apart from 4 mains and few usual expansions, there could be multiple extra expansions in the other parts of the map - the two routes that normally are hidden by the map border.
On a side note, Starcraft engine does not allow to have a globe map, where there wouldnt be any border at all, but that would be at least interesting.
The main idea is that apart from the usual 2-3 routes in center, there are multiple routes in the back - for more options of unit movements.
Things to think about:
* if 4 starting spots -> they should be farther away from each other, unfortunately this means macro play. Open topic is if they should allow to enter the base or not
* maybe some smart neutral buildings, to be able to go out from the base to the "back" side of the map
* ability to move army behind the usual part of map (green arrows in my crappy drawing)
* more expansions, allowing to make a hidden expansion
* armies stretched more thin - since many more places to expand
* to balance against terran the maps couldnt have that many trees, ridges and similar
* to balance against zerg, there should be space for turrets near standard mineral lines
Basically you take a normal map and extend it - make it 4x times bigger.
|
I’ve always wondered how the standard maximum map size (128x128) was settled.
Most people don’t want extremely long games or strategy unsound for normal maps… but you’d think they would occasionally try out a bigger map from time to time.
|
so like FS with pathfinder/outsider backdoor passageways? idk, sylphid's 12:00 is already a nightmare for terran to defend mutas, giving zerg an extra 180 degrees worth of angles to harass your base sounds like it would be imbalanced
![[image loading]](https://liquipedia.net/commons/images/5/53/Pathfinder.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://liquipedia.net/commons/images/4/4e/Outsider_SE_2.2.jpg)
edit: i forgot about Battle Royal which had outer expansions, iirc the map was broken for zerg... maybe that was more because of the troy gates though
![[image loading]](https://liquipedia.net/commons/images/b/bf/201_Battle_Royal.jpg)
|
The minimap gets tiny whenever you go above 128x128, I imagine that contributes to it.
|
None of the maps listed by Crimson)S(hadow is what I mean.
In fact all of the maps presented by him could be "expanded" to have 1-2 additional routes behind the mains.
Since this would mean more routes and more space, additional expansions could be made there - perhaps for a secret base that is relatively far away.
Imagine that you take any standard map and draw 2 or 3 circles around it, which mean various types of low or high ground - that are divided perhaps by walls, or perhaps by this special "low ground" thing that can be passed by units.
This adds much more space to the map, with possibility for unit movement.
Note that in the crappy drawing below, I only added extra space, the "circles" probably shouldnt be a wall, but rather a canyon (like in that new map, where there is this low ground canyon near natural).
|
Multiple entrances into main = PvZ graveyard. Tears of the Moon Protoss is evidence of this.
|
In none of the maps I show there are multiple entrances to the main.
The extra space is just behind the main.
Perhaps the extra entrance could be done via a neutral building for late game.
|
Games will become very boring, and long. And Zergs will probably become too OP.
Longer distance = rushes are more likely to be defended, especially early and mid game rushes. So why gives your opponent an advantage by attacking? Both sides will just camp and expand.
Zerg will benefit the most because whenever they get to drone up early on, they get ahead no matter what. And in the late game, their mobility becomes unmatched while the Nydus gives them defensive stability.
|
because its too big. 256x256 is four times as big as a 128x128 map.
also, there's somewhat of a sweet spot on the max number of expansions at ~16 (e.g. Polypoid, Pole Star).
games on maps with more expansions, e.g. 20 or more tend to drag on forever and become tiresome, for the few affected matchups, with TvT being the worst one
if you'd increase the map area by 4 times (128x128 -> 256x256), you'd either need wayyy more expansions to fill out the map (bad) or vastly increase the distances between expansions (also bad)
there are plenty of non-blizzard 256x256 maps - I suggest you download one from broodwarmaps.net and share your experience after playing a few 1v1's there
|
Even if 256x256 is way too big, it would be interesting to see one pro map try slightly bigger than 128 along one axis.
Like 192x128… or 192x96
I get it might be imba but maps like Battle Royal have been tried before. Concept maps are tolerated in BW pro scene…
It surprises me that even back in 1999 there weren’t one or two of these tried at the ladder/pro level.
Oh well. Just thinking outloud, I get it probably wouldn’t be good.
|
On May 03 2026 02:03 Kraekkling wrote:
because its too big. 256x256 is four times as big as a 128x128 map.
also, there's somewhat of a sweet spot on the max number of expansions at ~16 (e.g. Polypoid, Pole Star).
games on maps with more expansions, e.g. 20 or more tend to drag on forever and become tiresome, for the few affected matchups, with TvT being the worst one
if you'd increase the map area by 4 times (128x128 -> 256x256), you'd either need wayyy more expansions to fill out the map (bad) or vastly increase the distances between expansions (also bad)
there are plenty of non-blizzard 256x256 maps - I suggest you download one from broodwarmaps.net and share your experience after playing a few 1v1's there
there doesn't seem to be a way to filter only 256x256 maps on bwmn, which ones are the better ones?
|
i gotta agree with the sentiment, that bigger maps were never even attempted. Even slightly bigger map like 144x144 (since sizes like 112x128 are possible, i imagine we don't have to stick to 128, 192 or 256 only). Maybe has to do with a small tiny rectangle on the minimap past 128 size, but regardless, wouldnt hurt to try a new angle.
Perhaps, pros know the answer already and they know its just imba, but hey, we foreigners dont )
|
On May 03 2026 03:01 Crimson)S(hadow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2026 02:03 Kraekkling wrote:
because its too big. 256x256 is four times as big as a 128x128 map.
also, there's somewhat of a sweet spot on the max number of expansions at ~16 (e.g. Polypoid, Pole Star).
games on maps with more expansions, e.g. 20 or more tend to drag on forever and become tiresome, for the few affected matchups, with TvT being the worst one
if you'd increase the map area by 4 times (128x128 -> 256x256), you'd either need wayyy more expansions to fill out the map (bad) or vastly increase the distances between expansions (also bad)
there are plenty of non-blizzard 256x256 maps - I suggest you download one from broodwarmaps.net and share your experience after playing a few 1v1's there there doesn't seem to be a way to filter only 256x256 maps on bwmn, which ones are the better ones?
no idea tbh, but you can check out 8-player maps by Excalibur, those should be up to date in regards to mineral layouts etc
edit: just found this gem lol
|
The absurd double python map ( http://www.panschk.de/mappage/comments.php?mapid=5226 ) above kind of shows that you dont need to utilize the full 256 x 256 map. You can fill part with water.
In a way it shows my idea - to extend the map. However what I write is to extend the map around from every side.
Also, exactly as Bonyth wrote, the modern map editors allow maps in non-standard sizes, so you can make a "bigger" map, for example in 180 x 180 once you draw it.
My idea / proposal is to have a standard map and then basically allow movement and expansions in one - two routes "in the back". Probably using another idea - the "ditch / canyon" that is not a wall, but hides vision would be used there.
(On a side note: I remember there was a ridiculous fastest map version that was a strip that only allowed to move the screen left or right, the height was only 1 screen)
|
Is there some way to contact Forgotten_ to discuss this with him?
(We managed to revive Starcraft Beta as a community long time ago, maybe we can at least share the idea with pro-league mapmakers and their forum - no idea where it is though + probably in Korean... but I guess time to use translator, so half os stuff gets lost in translation)
|
This is not an example of what I mean, but still lol
The extension is only in the bottom right corner, I mean to extend the map all around.
|
Wow that double python map is fucking legendary XD
I didn’t realize non-standard sizes existed! I thought it had to be 128, 192, 256… yeah, in that case something like a 144x144 would be interesting! Maybe someday…
|
I'd imagine the unit cap would have to raise to make larger maps make sense. 128x128 can be covered by 200/200 but a giant map with a similar size army would introduce more luck based on who happened to be where?
I'm asking, not telling. I fkn suck at BW.
|
On May 03 2026 06:06 Kraekkling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2026 03:01 Crimson)S(hadow wrote:On May 03 2026 02:03 Kraekkling wrote:
because its too big. 256x256 is four times as big as a 128x128 map.
also, there's somewhat of a sweet spot on the max number of expansions at ~16 (e.g. Polypoid, Pole Star).
games on maps with more expansions, e.g. 20 or more tend to drag on forever and become tiresome, for the few affected matchups, with TvT being the worst one
if you'd increase the map area by 4 times (128x128 -> 256x256), you'd either need wayyy more expansions to fill out the map (bad) or vastly increase the distances between expansions (also bad)
there are plenty of non-blizzard 256x256 maps - I suggest you download one from broodwarmaps.net and share your experience after playing a few 1v1's there there doesn't seem to be a way to filter only 256x256 maps on bwmn, which ones are the better ones? no idea tbh, but you can check out 8-player maps by Excalibur, those should be up to date in regards to mineral layouts etc edit: just found this gem lol
that reminded me of this map:
(8)Four Maps 1.1(n) Z on bwmn
http://www.panschk.de/mappage/comments.php?mapid=5094
|
it is terrible to play on big maps. That is all it comes down to. All the above mentiones reasons apply.
|
|
|
The year is 20XX. 256x256 maps are played exclusively. The average ZvZ is now 4 hours long. TvTs are inherited by their children once the players pass on. People still die to DT rush in PvP.
|
|
|
For the same reason there arent 9 hour movies. Bigger is not always better.
Even with 3 hour movies people start to tap out.
However of only 20 minutes movies? People are unfulfilled because it is too short.
There is a sweetspot somewhere. In this example at around 90-120 minutes, that seems to give the best experience.
This is maybe not a perfect analogy. But it is the closest one I can think of that "bigger is not always better".
EDIT: I'd be more interested to see minerals that randomly grow back once a base is depleted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GDFzAdM.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FiF01Wg.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1703PQF.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2H16DyU.jpeg)
