| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
What kind of maps are you capable of making for 1v1 if the map size is increased? I'm being totally serious here, assuming the gameplay is 100% identical, what could mapmakers do with a 1v1 map if the upper limits were 256x256 instead of 128x128 or anything inbetween for that matter. | ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
| ||
|
Cryoc
Germany909 Posts
| ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
| ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
On March 26 2017 14:37 Cryoc wrote: Am I missing something here? You can already make 256x256 maps, but they are just too huge for 1v1. From my understanding the problem is that it fucks with the map resolution. As in you could see small units like a marine on the mini-map. Okay let's assume 256x256 is too large, which it is. How about a 170x110 map instead of 128x128, how about 163x79, etc. If the Mini map resolutions are better the mapmakers can now play with this at their will, before they were stuck with 128x128 or 128x96. From my understanding if you went beyond 128x128, the minimap was already fucked. If you went anything above 128x128, already too much, the map is fucked, but with the HD update, this all goes out the window, and I seriously doubt 128x128 is the perfect size for a map, it couldn't be. | ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
On March 26 2017 14:42 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: 256x256 is horrendous to play on with less than 4 people That is 4x larger than (Current) standard 1v1 maps. How about 1.5x larger? That doesn't seem to large potential. This is why I'm asking mapmakers, who have experience, I'm wondering what kind of maps they could cook up with this, and I'm pretty sure they have the capacity to make new and interesting maps if the map resolution has been fixed,which it probably has. | ||
|
outscar
2832 Posts
| ||
|
duke91
Germany1458 Posts
On March 26 2017 17:32 outscar wrote: I don't care about size at all. I'm dreaming about new tilesets. That'll be epic! Or snowmaps which are not too bright | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
Blue
Norway359 Posts
On March 26 2017 17:32 outscar wrote: I don't care about size at all. I'm dreaming about new tilesets. That'll be epic! second that! | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
This old crockpot sage mapmaker called Nightmarjoo always yelled at dumb noobs for "wasted space" on maps. That's because if you waste any space (Like excessive use of water) on a 128x128 map, it'll be detrimental for gameplay for spacing reasons. You want to make use of all of the space or gameplay will be fucked. Now, the next smallest size we can use is 192x128. This is an awful size. Far too big for 1on1s. That's why everyone stuck with 128. If we get something in between like 144 or so, that will likely be a fun size to play around with. You can get a bit more creative with sizes like that since there's more room to implement weird shapes and such. SC2 has a lot of cool map designs that are enabled because of the map size availability. SC1 mappers will likely be able to play around with a lot more cool shapes if we can get slightly larger map sizes. What I'm thinking will be the first priority though is making sure the custom ramps and shit aren't fucked. | ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
On March 27 2017 01:56 neobowman wrote: Okay, so maps have til now mostly been 92x128, 112x128 or 128x128. For 1on1 maps, this is an optimal size. This old crockpot sage mapmaker called Nightmarjoo always yelled at dumb noobs for "wasted space" on maps. That's because if you waste any space (Like excessive use of water) on a 128x128 map, it'll be detrimental for gameplay for spacing reasons. You want to make use of all of the space or gameplay will be fucked. Now, the next smallest size we can use is 192x128. This is an awful size. Far too big for 1on1s. That's why everyone stuck with 128. If we get something in between like 144 or so, that will likely be a fun size to play around with. You can get a bit more creative with sizes like that since there's more room to implement weird shapes and such. SC2 has a lot of cool map designs that are enabled because of the map size availability. SC1 mappers will likely be able to play around with a lot more cool shapes if we can get slightly larger map sizes. What I'm thinking will be the first priority though is making sure the custom ramps and shit aren't fucked. How much of a difference do you think something like a 144x144 would make as opposed to 128x128 in terms of map making? | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
PVJ
Hungary5214 Posts
Or do I misunderstand the proposal in OP? | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On March 27 2017 03:36 PVJ wrote: I'm wondering though, if you want SCR and classic BW to be compatible you can't just make a map that works in HD laddering and not w/o. Or do I misunderstand the proposal in OP? yeah you're probably right, i doubt that additional map sizes will be supported. | ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
On March 27 2017 04:06 -NegativeZero- wrote: yeah you're probably right, i doubt that additional map sizes will be supported. Then maybe we should ask them to patch it in for regular SD too? | ||
|
JungleTerrain
Chile799 Posts
2 player maps are usually 96x128 or 128x96 or 112x128, and rarely are they 128x128 (examples like Monty hall, etc). There really is no reason to have map sizes that are bigger than that. Distances in brood war actually affect balance. So map size affects balance. And there are several important distances in "orthodox" maps, such as: Main2nat: determines how much perimeter Terran has to defend from muta harass, or other races from other types of harass, and determines comfortability of races in their mains, I would say that it is also tied to main size or shape, like in Katrina, recalls are easier for P and are more problematic to defend. Main2main: affects Zerg ability to rush early pools on certain maps (those that cannot be walled) Nat2nat: rush distance between players' naturals and the closer they are, the more advtange the less mobile race has (the race that generally isn't seeking to flank or outmaneuver the other, like T in TvP, P in PvZ, T in TvZ.) I'm getting specific here but I guess what I'm trying to say is that someone playing on a differently sized map would have to play differently than "standard" lol. It throws timings off that have been created by players over time meant to deal with maps that have all been similar size. Also, the longer distances in a map, the more time an attacker takes to reach the defender, so it is basically a defenders advantage. Therefore there is more of an incentive to play defensively and possibly turtley as opposed to aggressive (more economy builds). So you would see more early Fast Expands and less aggressive early games. Then again we don't know what competitive gameplay on bigger maps would actually look like because this is all theory, so it would be nice to actually see how players would change their play style on a bigger map. However, in competitive play (and when money is on the line) people usually play to their strengths, the more assured way to win, and I predict it would be more turtley gameplay that would be favored. I personally feel the map sizes now have a great balance in terms of game pacing and racial balance so I wouldn't want to venture too much into bigger map territory. I think it is important to think about even things like map sizes in terms of "buffs and nerfs" to certain strategies or races, and the overall effect on gameplay. | ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
On March 29 2017 10:43 JungleTerrain wrote: Actually besides the limitations to the game engine being unable to play dimensions that aren't 96,112,128,196,256, it is also a map racial balance issue. The game has evolved all these years on map sizes that have worked for the game engine. 2 player maps are usually 96x128 or 128x96 or 112x128, and rarely are they 128x128 (examples like Monty hall, etc). There really is no reason to have map sizes that are bigger than that. Distances in brood war actually affect balance. So map size affects balance. And there are several important distances in "orthodox" maps, such as: Main2nat: determines how much perimeter Terran has to defend from muta harass, or other races from other types of harass, and determines comfortability of races in their mains, I would say that it is also tied to main size or shape, like in Katrina, recalls are easier for P and are more problematic to defend. Main2main: affects Zerg ability to rush early pools on certain maps (those that cannot be walled) Nat2nat: rush distance between players' naturals and the closer they are, the more advtange the less mobile race has (the race that generally isn't seeking to flank or outmaneuver the other, like T in TvP, P in PvZ, T in TvZ.) I'm getting specific here but I guess what I'm trying to say is that someone playing on a differently sized map would have to play differently than "standard" lol. It throws timings off that have been created by players over time meant to deal with maps that have all been similar size. Also, the longer distances in a map, the more time an attacker takes to reach the defender, so it is basically a defenders advantage. Therefore there is more of an incentive to play defensively and possibly turtley as opposed to aggressive (more economy builds). So you would see more early Fast Expands and less aggressive early games. Then again we don't know what competitive gameplay on bigger maps would actually look like because this is all theory, so it would be nice to actually see how players would change their play style on a bigger map. However, in competitive play (and when money is on the line) people usually play to their strengths, the more assured way to win, and I predict it would be more turtley gameplay that would be favored. I personally feel the map sizes now have a great balance in terms of game pacing and racial balance so I wouldn't want to venture too much into bigger map territory. I think it is important to think about even things like map sizes in terms of "buffs and nerfs" to certain strategies or races, and the overall effect on gameplay. Doesn't it potentially give you more space though, to make interesting map deisgns, you can still keep nat2nat the same. At the very least it would help if you wanted to make an Outsider-esque map, right? Or if you wanted to make a fun, but semi balanced map, maybe you could make a concept like this work: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/commons/images/4/4f/Battle_of_Salsu.jpg) Either way I'm not a map maker, but I could see how a slightly bigger map could help you do more things with it, it seems to much of a coincidence to me that precisely 128x128 would be THE perfect map size for mapmaking, that's pretty much the most you've had for the past 20 years, I'm sure there are ways to utilize more space, I'm not talking 256x256, that would obviously be too much, but say 140x140, maybe that extra bit of space allows you to do a bit more that you couldn't usually do. Or maybe more asymmetrical maps, I hear 3 player maps are already difficult to make, but maybe with a bit more size you could experiment with a 5 player size. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/commons/images/4/4b/%285%29Quintessence1024.jpg) Maybe this map could work for legitimate 1v1 play, if you had 140x140 or 145x145 to play with. It is entirely possible that I'm overthinking this. | ||
|
JungleTerrain
Chile799 Posts
On March 29 2017 15:37 thezanursic wrote: Either way I'm not a map maker, but I could see how a slightly bigger map could help you do more things with it, it seems to much of a coincidence to me that precisely 128x128 would be THE perfect map size for mapmaking, that's pretty much the most you've had for the past 20 years, I'm sure there are ways to utilize more space, I'm not talking 256x256, that would obviously be too much, but say 140x140, maybe that extra bit of space allows you to do a bit more that you couldn't usually do. I'm saying precisely that it's not that 128x128 is the perfect map size by coincidence, but it's that since all maps have been the same relative size since the beginning of professional play, the meta has always been built around just that. We made the gameplay fit into the map sizes we were given. If 64x64 was the preferred map size, we would have a different way to play the game. But I think the reason why 128x128 and similar 1v1 map sizes "feel right" is that 1) they align well with the 200/200 supply limit and 2) they look right on the minimap (smaller reason). If max population in this game was 100/100, or 150/150, we would have a faster way to reach the lategame and probably slightly different strategies, because the end goal of economic play (max population) is different. Also, things like unit movement speeds, building times, 12-unit selection limit, and the fact that blizzard made 128x128 the "standard" minimap size (why didn't they pick any other dimensions?), all these affect the way we play the game. Think of it like Karl Marx lol (sorry for this but I just had to) ... Our material circumstances determine our means of production and social relations... Our map sizes and game engine and its limitations determine the way we play the game. So yeah, there I go getting theoretical again. This is my personal theory on this issue, I could be dead wrong, but it's a way of thinking about it. Practically speaking, though, yes, there is definitely room for experimentation. If other map sizes are supported, why not make other map sizes? I mean it won't hurt anyone. At that point it becomes a personal decision for the map maker because the sad reality is that one of the only joys map makers get is the fact that they see people play on their maps. I don't follow SC2 but it is a similar situation there as in BW [except probably worse here] in regards to map makers. We don't do it for money, we don't do it for fame (although these two would be great), and many times we go unnoticed while we try hard to make quality maps that most times nobody will pay attention to. At least for me, I get personal satisfaction out of making good looking and well playing maps, and if somebody wants to play on it, then that's awesome. It's just something fun, a hobby, I guess. I say this because making maps going against the standard or orthodox will most likely be ignored, especially in competitive play. So do I want to spend my time making a map that is likely to not garner much attention? I would be down to. Only thing is that it comes down to opportunity cost for me... I'm very busy and if I spend time making a map with an experimental size it means that I'm not spending that time making a map that I think has more potential to getting used by players. Now... if OGN got the OMAT (Ongamenet Map Architect Team) back and running again, or something similar, they would probably be more than willing to experiment with whatever new things the remaster brings. So be looking forward for that. If you didn't know, OMAT were the ones who created some very whacky maps for KeSPA, I forget who exactly was on there. Even though some of their ideas were stupid and unplayable, they pushed mapmaking in a fun direction I think. I don't know what Freak would say about this topic, that's for him to say... And also there's the question of Mapdori or Intothemap (Korean mapmaking websites) that could come back again since they died off. Or what I would really like to see is more foreign mapmakers and some actual contact with tournament organizers with foreign mapmakers... Hopefully more people get into mapmaking. That would probably be the best bet to see an explosion of new experimentation with maps. There's actually still some things that could be implemented into Melee maps that have not been done before, even before talking about the remaster. | ||
|
JungleTerrain
Chile799 Posts
On March 27 2017 01:56 neobowman wrote: This old crockpot sage mapmaker called Nightmarjoo always yelled at dumb noobs for "wasted space" on maps. That's because if you waste any space (Like excessive use of water) on a 128x128 map, it'll be detrimental for gameplay for spacing reasons. You want to make use of all of the space or gameplay will be fucked. I could be wrong about this, but I always saw Nmjoo's argument about wasted space as this: All portions of the map should serve some purpose, and even empty space can serve a purpose. However there is useful empty space and then merely wasteful empty space. The reason why wasteful space is bad is not because it is inherently bad to waste space, but the fact that it is "potentially useful" space that is not being used. Like... a map is at 80% of what it could actually be, because part of it is being wasted, but if you just used all the space in the map, it would be a 100% use of space, and the map will be the best that it could potentially be. It's that the map is bad relative to what it can be. Does that make sense? It's like pointing out that an almost full glass of water is missing water at the top and should be filled instead of saying that the glass is almost at the top. Or kinetic and potential energy. What you see in action is kinetic energy, while potential energy is dormant and cannot be seen because it is not being used. You should use all of it. Hopefully I don't sound like a fool here. If the map has a lot of useless wasted space, then this is the grand conclusion: It is a poorly designed map. The mapmaker did not make a good use of the space they were given, and the map is not what it could have been. The counter-arguments to this is that what if you design a map that is 128x128 or something like that, but it is really stretched out, has a lot of wasted space that serves no purpose (it isn't a buffer between areas, doesn't hold strategic importance, is just there because the design of the map didn't take it into consideration how to make it useful)? What if the map was designed to waste this space? From Nmjoo's point of view, he would just say that the map is poorly designed. Here's a picture of a map that was deemed as such (I won't say who made it, out of respect for our fallen comrade): ![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/1.9.JPEG) The corners are wasted, there is no reason to have that much space between the middle and the mains, etc. etc. That is empty wasted space. Another form of wasted space could be overly large open areas that are just too big and take up too much space in proportion to a map, or w/e. In either case, the problem is a design issue. Even the map above doesn't "look" that bad. But there's a lot of wasted space and it could have been used to make the map better. Overall the map is tight and linear, etc. and these could have been solved by using the space that was wasted. Nmjoo said that he came up with this conclusion after seeing similar mistakes being made by mapmakers over and over again. He noticed that at the core of the map's flaws was a design issue, not an execution issue (unless execution was lacking obviously), and the evidence for the flawed design was the wasted space. So the question is "If your map has flaws, why didn't you use that wasted space efficiently to solve them?" So if your map has wasted space built into its design, there is no reason for that, and you should have just started with a map with smaller dimensions. I'm talking like Nmjoo is dead here, I just haven't had contact with him recently. Obviously he could come in and say that I have his argument all wrong. However, I think there were a lot of people that flamed him and didn't think about what he said more critically. Seems like he got discouraged that so many people didn't take his words seriously and he just moved on to other interests. But I think it's a good way to think about map theory. If I had to summarize, I would say the main point of the argument is that wasted space is evidence of a bad map design. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
OSC
Epic.LAN
Big Brain Bouts
sebesdes vs SpeCial
Harstem vs YoungYakov
GgMaChine vs uThermal
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
CSO Contender
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
