Low economy map questions.

generic88

United States118 Posts

June 04 2009 01:14 GMT

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!

DM20

Canada544 Posts

June 04 2009 01:24 GMT

Maps weren't designed to be lower econ, its just the idea of macro games weren't fully developed and most strategies were one off timing windows to kill your opponent.

Dazed.

Canada3301 Posts

June 04 2009 01:34 GMT

Maps were designed to be lower econ. Try to macro off this map effectively, just try. You can't do it. It's contoured to a harass based, low econ style. Just like they played it.
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.

United States6173 Posts

June 04 2009 05:04 GMT

No, I really think it just took time for map-making to mature. At this point, most maps are more macro-based because it's easier to balance maps in that direction. It's also easier to tell if a matchup is balanced when the games are more macro-based.

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

June 04 2009 05:10 GMT

Maps today usually have pretty generous amounts of minerals in the main and natural. I consider 8 in the main to be fairly low-econ as apposed to 9 or 10, especially when the natural and mineral only scale the same way.

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

June 04 2009 05:58 GMT

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

June 04 2009 06:39 GMT

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.

Deleted User 31060

3788 Posts

June 04 2009 06:42 GMT

it would be interesting to see progamers play on Blood Bath

leveIs

United States44 Posts

June 04 2009 06:47 GMT

boxer bottom left red terran vs that random (teal?) toss top right on the island map, ashworld tileset. 4 expansions, for 6 total bases. That was the most exciting game I've ever seen. If they switched to low econ maps, the players at the top would completely change.

United States6173 Posts

June 04 2009 07:13 GMT

#10

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

June 04 2009 07:28 GMT

#11

By low econ I presume you mean something to the effect of a map that does not very easily allow for macro war game play.

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

June 04 2009 07:28 GMT

#12

Maps these days allow for the naturals to be defended significantly easier than in the past. Most obvious example is Fantasy vs Gaema Gowon

[image loading]

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

June 04 2009 16:04 GMT

#13

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.

Stratos_speAr

United States6959 Posts

June 04 2009 22:20 GMT

#14

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

June 04 2009 23:01 GMT

#15

Next the maps will be similar to fastest.

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

June 05 2009 00:19 GMT

#16

I'd love to see some variation in the map-types, I've only been watching competetive starcraft for about 2.5 years and in that time I have seen the game adapt, but it has consistently adapted in macro-oriented way. Really it would be awesome to see a few balanced low-econ maps thrown into the pool. That said, who decides which type of maps to make? Who decides which are used for each tournament? Do most Koreans prefer watching hyper-macro games?

Dazed.

Canada3301 Posts

June 05 2009 00:21 GMT

#17

I'm pretty sure kespa just hires map makers, and any quality maps they see are put into testing. If they are relatively balanced/fit Kespa's theme [note: kespa will bring out unfavourable maps to whatever race is raping, to ensure continued balance/variability], then they will put it in. Or maybe the sponsors of PL and the osl/msl decide that last part, im not sure.

Please or register to reply.

Low economy map questions.

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming