| Forum Index > BW General |
|
generic88
United States118 Posts
How little resources make a map be considered "low econ"? What type of effect did this have on player strategies and game pace (faster or slower)? Were these "low econ" maps imbalanced? If they were, why? If they were not, why did they disappear? Did they make the games boring to watch? Answers are very much appreciated! Thank you for your time! Have a nice day! | ||
|
DM20
Canada544 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
Cant figure out how to hyperlink this into text on this forum, sorry. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/maps/133_Jungle_Story Some were imbalanced, some were not. Its hard to tell if they were imbalanced given the past capabilities/play styles, or were simply intrinsically imbalanced. They phased out because over time, map makers and players tended to find a way to play a more macro focused game, and that drew attention. Honestly I don't know why its not shifting back, cause I'm damn sure we are overdue for a change up. Edit: As for game pace, the games took longer to see any kind of action, but once they did they usually hinged on just a single dropship, a few units of positioning, a single base, etc. So it took a while to get up, but it hit a terrifying climax very often, opposed to many macro games which start off quickly and hang there until one side takes a massive advantage. There isn't really a certain amount of money to declare a map low econ. Look at neo reqium, the map is designed for more aggression and harassment, tending away from macro games. It has a lot of money. A low econ map is a map that plays low econ, regardless of the money supply. I.e: theres a lot of bases, but ridiculously hard to hold onto, while aggressive plays pay off more, would be a low econ map. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
Look at maps like Plasma, Tears, Battle Royal (to an extent...it has a lot of bases, but the outside ones rarely get used) and other weird relatively low-income recent maps. They turned out to be pretty horribly balanced. They weren't used long enough to see if they could be balanced by different strategies and builds and whatnot, but that probably would have taken quite a while. It's like Dazed_Spy said...it's difficult to tell whether lower-econ style play is balanced or not due to how fast and how pinched games are. Plus there's always the option to play low-econ and aggressively on macro maps...just look at Boxer, Upmagic, Much, etc. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Because of this, macro strategies are more effective. Combine that with the layouts that are generally very kind to fast expoing, and any kind of one base build is relying on catching your opponent off guard more than it is a seriously viable form of play. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's undeniable that more peons on a map with more minerals will be stronger than more peons on a map with fewer minerals. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 04 2009 10:14 generic88 wrote: I'm too new to the game to have watched the evolution of the pro-scene map pool, however, from what I've heard the maps used to be a lot more "low econ". That said, I've got a few questions regarding them. How little resources make a map be considered "low econ"? What type of effect did this have on player strategies and game pace (faster or slower)? Were these "low econ" maps imbalanced? If they were, why? If they were not, why did they disappear? Did they make the games boring to watch? Answers are very much appreciated! Thank you for your time! Have a nice day! I would consider anything under 8 mineral patches low econ, and this obviously made the game slower and more focused on protecting expansions or else you're F'd. Some were balanced, some weren't. Depended more on the actual map shape than the resources. | ||
|
professorjoak
318 Posts
Signs of low econ maps include * 8 or fewer mineral patches at bases * Lack of gas at natural expansion * No natural expansion (becoming rare) * Open structure in general, few choke points When Blizzard first made Starcraft, maps only had 6-8 mineral patches at the main bases (same or fewer at expansions). Maps were typically much more "open" than we now see, and on many maps you were not even guaranteed a safe natural expansion. Modern maps have more resources because it was noted that * Balance is easier to achieve with choke points and ramps in the main base/natural expansion * It's easier to balance Zerg matchups if you give them gas at the natural expansion * Given that Zerg can fast expand to a 2nd gas, it's easier to balance the Terran or Protoss by giving them 9-10 minerals Personally, I'd like to see a return to ultra-low econ games. A vast majority of the most memorable games I can think of were low-econ. Maps that were relatively open closer to the main bases would be fun too, although probably imbalanced. | ||
|
Deleted User 31060
3788 Posts
| ||
|
leveIs
United States44 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On June 04 2009 15:39 professorjoak wrote: Virtually all of the Blizzard maps that shipped with Brood War would be considered low econ by today's standards, except The Hunters, Lost Temple, and River Styx. Even the latter two would be borderline since the mineral patch count is 8 instead of 9-10 like modern maps. Signs of low econ maps include * 8 or fewer mineral patches at bases * Lack of gas at natural expansion * No natural expansion (becoming rare) * Open structure in general, few choke points When Blizzard first made Starcraft, maps only had 6-8 mineral patches at the main bases (same or fewer at expansions). Maps were typically much more "open" than we now see, and on many maps you were not even guaranteed a safe natural expansion. Modern maps have more resources because it was noted that * Balance is easier to achieve with choke points and ramps in the main base/natural expansion * It's easier to balance Zerg matchups if you give them gas at the natural expansion * Given that Zerg can fast expand to a 2nd gas, it's easier to balance the Terran or Protoss by giving them 9-10 minerals Personally, I'd like to see a return to ultra-low econ games. A vast majority of the most memorable games I can think of were low-econ. Maps that were relatively open closer to the main bases would be fun too, although probably imbalanced. There are actually a lot of blizz maps that had more than 8 mineral patches...generally they had ten very badly placed patches. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
What makes a map "low econ" is having FE builds be easily shut down. Paranoid Android is an obvious example. Even to some extent, LT and Rivalry and other old maps make good examples. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/167_Fantasy%20II.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/63_Sin%20Gaema%20Gowon.jpg) See the bottom left base in Pic1 (fantasy) compared to the bottom left in Pic2 (Gaema Gowon). Fantasy is from 2007/08, Gaema is from 2002/03 I'd like to see Bisu try and bisu build on gaema! | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 05 2009 01:04 Dazed_Spy wrote: Is anyone else tired of this hyper macro era, though? I mean, alright, I like maps from 2004-2005. That was the macro era's start. But right now is getting ridiculous. Look at Gods Garden/Andromeda. If long rush distance and obtusely plentiful gas/resources becomes ingrained in Starcraftt for much longer, its going to be boring to watch and play. Why cant they throw us a macro based map with a shorter rush distance? A farther third gas? Just do some proper testing to ensure balance, for god sakes. Very good point. Limiting the macro intensive maps would make the pro scene really interesting. Games are all starting to become similar except for a certain few (like Flash vs. Jaedong in the GOMTV Invitational, 3 matches, 3 aggressive rush builds, pretty intense micro). | ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
But honestly, I want to see less macro intensive maps since I'm an aggressive player, and trying to break an expo when there's only a narrow choke blocking it isn't that fun. | ||
|
generic88
United States118 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
| ||
FEL
Cracow 2025
Clem vs Krystianer
uThermal vs SKillousLIVE!
Reynor vs MaNa
Lambo vs Gerald
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
