| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Channel56k
United States413 Posts
As a map maker myself my specific question is what makes a map balanced and what sort of traits sway the balance between races? For example: I used to have the impression that a map with a short rush distance favored zerg until "Incineration Zone" was released. My impression was that the short rush distance worked against zerg and its ability to quick expand. *the question does not pertain to zerg alone, but im curious what might sway a map in favor of Protoss, Terran, and Zerg collectively. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
expansions that push away from ur opponent favors zerg watch towers favor zerg cliffs favor terran backdoors to main favor toss potential for harass favors terran open area favors zerg along with wide ramps buildable ground favors t>z and p>t mainbases with high money favors toss close 3rd base disfavor zerg islands favor zerg small main base favors zerg safe natural favors zerg water favor zerg these are just a couple of examples, ofcourse they r not 100% accurate but this is my general experience  tvp is not affected by maps so much, the races are quite similar when fighting each other zvp revolves much around how easy zerg can defend his 2base, and if 3rd is far away its just great. open area too then u got a zerg map^^ take kulas ravine, high harass and backstabbing potential and no flanking, total hell for zerg. tvz easy taken natural doesnt have to disfavor terran, t also wants a close 3rd base like toss. far away gold expo is an ideal zerg base, like scrap station. map balance revolves so damn much about terran mech its ridiculous, incinetration zone was impossible for zerg in so many ways in both mus also im not gonna explain why i think what i think, this is just my opinion and i have no facts, nor do you | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
It's also important to think of the balance in terms of matchup, not race. What may be good for Zerg in ZvT might be different than what's good for Zerg in ZvP. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On July 01 2010 10:41 MorroW wrote: short distances (to opponent) favor terran and toss. in tvp i would give the slight edge to terran. expansions that push away from ur opponent favors zerg watch towers favor zerg cliffs favor terran backdoors to main favor toss potential for harass favors terran open area favors zerg along with wide ramps buildable ground favors t>z and p>t mainbases with high money favors toss close 3rd base disfavor zerg islands favor zerg small main base favors zerg safe natural favors zerg water favor zerg these are just a couple of examples, ofcourse they r not 100% accurate but this is my general experience tvp is not affected by maps so much, the races are quite similar when fighting each other zvp revolves much around how easy zerg can defend his 2base, and if 3rd is far away its just great. open area too then u got a zerg map^^ take kulas ravine, high harass and backstabbing potential and no flanking, total hell for zerg. tvz easy taken natural doesnt have to disfavor terran, t also wants a close 3rd base like toss. far away gold expo is an ideal zerg base, like scrap station. map balance revolves so damn much about terran mech its ridiculous, incinetration zone was impossible for zerg in so many ways in both mus also im not gonna explain why i think what i think, this is just my opinion and i have no facts, nor do you really good post morrow, thanks for the insight! Would love to see other top players post their opinions on maps as well. | ||
|
Channel56k
United States413 Posts
Again as someone who spends a lot of time on maps I literally ask myself the question "How can I avoid the 'this map favors Terran' response?" What specifically sways a map towards Terran? I assume small chokes for seige and 3rd bases with accessible cliffs. What else and if possible allude to a map other than Incineration Zone pls. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On July 01 2010 10:49 LaughingTulkas wrote: really good post morrow, thanks for the insight! Would love to see other top players post their opinions on maps as well. tnx but you cant take it all seriously or just word by word. just like logo said different if u combine many elements into a map they will act differently together. and if u take 2 things that alone would favor zerg, if u mix it in a content it might end up favoring toss for example. its very complicated and as a mapmaker i would suggest u practice hard and learn game that way and then start make maps afterwards. its very difficult to learn how to make good maps without learning the game well ^^ On July 01 2010 10:50 konicki wrote: Well lets start with the one we/I prolly hear the most and that is this map "favors Terran". Again as someone who spends a lot of time on maps I literally ask myself the question "How can I avoid the 'this map favors Terran' response?" What specifically sways a map towards Terran? I assume small chokes for seige and 3rd bases with accessible cliffs. What else and if possible allude to a map other than Incineration Zone pls. stepps of war. insanily close positions for timing attacks and ridiculously close and easy 3rd base. that map is just as hilarious as incineration zone is. its not like zerg can make timing attacks into a terran because we have imba bunkers and siege tanks :d hopefully blizzard will give zerg more potential to use cliffs or harass points because right now any map with potential for harass automatically disfavors zerg regardless what the map looks like. lt cliff, kulas cliff never seen a zerg whos on the high ground in this scenario :s | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
I was going to make a thread similar to this after my three days lol. MorroW u r absolutely right about that, except maybe islands favoring zerg. I think they favor terran cause their CC can fly their. Zerg have to research drop or nydus. And once they expo there all that base can do is make drones or flying units unless a nydus is nearby. Then you can rally the hatchery to the nydus. Also backdoors to mains can favor zerg too. ^^, I think Lost Temple is a good well balanced map. It has harassment cliffs for Terrans, watchtowers and wide open spaces for zerg, and toss get buildable ground for a forge fast expand and proxy pylons and other stuff. | ||
|
Kantutan
Canada1319 Posts
| ||
|
Channel56k
United States413 Posts
How about protoss though? The commentary i hear the least is that a map "Favors Protoss". Also, would you agree that a good map combines elements that favor all races (granted you cannot have them all), but lets say a close third, but an open back door, small mains, and close air distance. | ||
|
jamesr12
United States1549 Posts
| ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
Islands that are very close to main are very easy for a Terran to expand to early, maybe so much that if they can take it as a first expo its too good. Just as Logo, MorroW and all said, this isn't necessary imbalanced if the rest of the map can smooth it out. For instance, you might have an island that a Terran could take as first expo early, but maybe place a watchtower on the mainland that can scout it early, too. A map with a ton of cliffery is not necessarily Terran-favored-tanks-lol, but you gotta think about it. I actually like playing Zerg on Incineration Zone because I can (usually) park overlords on those unpathable cliffs on the far side of the naturals for a long time before they get spotted. I put one at my nat and one at his. Stuff like that helps, say, a Zerg player deal with Terran mech using the tight space to prevent a flank. Until a Viking pops. :o( Protoss can use little nooks around the map for proxy pylons. Spots like the raised areas where the watchtowers are on Blistering Sands are good, but not too good. A million little nooks all over the map is probably too much and proxy becomes overly strong. Things like this are obvious, right? Until you've spent 20 hours on a map fiddling with everything, and then its nice to have a sort of check list like this thread could be to consider what your map is offering players. | ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On July 01 2010 11:25 dimfish wrote: Some non-match-up-specific things to think about: Well said. Really I think the important thing is to be used to the different races' mechanics at a reasonably high level. You don't have to play at said level yourself, but even just watching a lot of casts should help in this respect. Then when designing your map just think to yourself what would you like to do on this map to win against your opponent for each matchup. Even more specifically what would you like to do as each race in each matchup. If the most exciting and powerful things you think up all come from one race then your map is probably imbalanced. If you look at a map like Torrasque you don't get that even though there are ton of really exciting things. You'll say "Oh man I can double orbital MULE my natural as Terran, I can FE -> quicker third as zerg, I can totally DT rush past the Ultralisk as Protoss or use a proxy pylon to get some unexpected aggression on my opponent." The point being in a balanced map you can come up with all sorts of interesting things for each race rather than every cool thought being "well terran can drop tanks here, or they can float a CC here, or they can put tanks here, or a sensor tower here to cover all attack routes." | ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
You are sort of correct. The thing is zerg is the most extreme case because they will have the most units and require the largest space to flank and manuever. To a lesser extent this will effect PvT as well. It is also strategy based, so as trends change so can the map styles. With current trends the standard armies of zerg is like mass of roach/hydra or ling/hydra while toss and terran usually work towards their 'ball' of units that are supported by a few key units that really excell in tight places (storm, collosus, tanks, etc). Zerg doesn't have any units that match those so they suffer the most. | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On July 01 2010 10:41 MorroW wrote: short distances (to opponent) favor terran and toss. in tvp i would give the slight edge to terran. expansions that push away from ur opponent favors zerg watch towers favor zerg cliffs favor terran backdoors to main favor toss potential for harass favors terran open area favors zerg along with wide ramps buildable ground favors t>z and p>t mainbases with high money favors toss close 3rd base disfavor zerg islands favor zerg small main base favors zerg safe natural favors zerg water favor zerg There's parts I agree with and parts I don't on this. Short distances favor against Zerg It works against FE Zerg, and it's true that almost all Zerg FEs these days, but 1 base Zerg deserves more credit than it gets. If the Zerg plays extremely agressively I think the zerg can gain a strong advantage from it. A late rush is surprizingly devestating against toss players in particular. backdoors to main favor toss I see why you said this, but at the same time it goes hand in hand with Open areas favoring Zerg. 2 entrences opens a player to all sorts of harass. A trait of a strong Zerg player. potential for harass favors terran I take it you mean reapers and maps like arid wastes? True, although protoss have more trouble than Zerg and Zerg can use it. Maybe it favors against Protoss more than it favors Terran. mainbases with high money favors toss Why toss and not terran? It means the player doesn't need to expand as early, which is a terran trait. Could you elaborate on this? islands favor zerg As the other player said, it favors terran. It's too easy for a terran to lift off a CC, build a handful of missile turrets, and have a base that if nothing else will kill a ton of units before it goes down. safe natural favors zerg Again i'll return to the open ground argument. It may help a FE Zerg against an early harass, but in the long term having more easily harassed bases is good for the Zerg player. It's just zerg should be extremely focused on harass and leave chokepoints or well defended areas alone. That said, I agree with the rest of your observations. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
Consider that if BW hadn't found the main-natural combination of bases, it would not have found anywhere near the level of balance it reaches today. This is largely because the longer the game lasts, the higher the chance that the 'better' player will win. Note the earlier (mostly Blizzard) maps played in BW, and how terrible the balance would be if played on by today's gamers. Many of these maps favor the aggressor in most circumstances, and promote 1base play that results in quicker games and more 'fluke' wins. This isn't to say that strategical play isn't important, but that it should not completely dominate the 'real time' aspect of the game. Mechanics must mean something, or we might as well be playing a turn-based game. SC2 has run into this problem in beta, especially since many of the maps favor 1base play and give almost no benefits to the defender (further exacerbated by the game engine and lack of true high ground). This creates a situation where, 5-10 minutes into the game, it's very difficult to show who the truly better player is. There are 1base strategies that can be perfectly executed by a D- player that have a significant chance of beating any player out there. I think over time the community will use maps that discourage that type of situation, but so far the maps have seemed to specifically favor it instead. | ||
|
Bosnic
United States4 Posts
Aim for a "good" map, and work from there - changes can always be made. | ||
|
Zoltan
United States656 Posts
Example: you have a main on high ground with backdoor rocks to low ground, with a bridge choke (eg kulas). The bridge favors terran, because of easy defense with tanks / bunkers. The backdoor favors zerg and protoss, for their higher mobility. The sum of those is fairly balanced. | ||
|
Latham
9562 Posts
Short distances favor against Zerg It works against FE Zerg, and it's true that almost all Zerg FEs these days, but 1 base Zerg deserves more credit than it gets. If the Zerg plays extremely agressively I think the zerg can gain a strong advantage from it. A late rush is surprizingly devestating against toss players in particular. Because T's marines and Ps Zealots are that much better than zerglings. Even if you opt to play 1 base you'll be forced to sunken up even a little bit or make early roaches which effectively rapes your economy in comparation to a T's or a P's giving you either safety (sunkens) or 1 cute timing push(roaches/banes) Zerg is a reactionary race. The zerg player reacts to what his opponent is doing. You need time to get enough units to kill that timing push coming to kill you, while balancing economy and army when P/T can make both at the same time. Imagine if that dreaded 1/1/1 T push spawns instantly in your base instead of giving you the precious 30-45-60s to make more units to defend it. MorroW is correct in his assessments. Don't think about it "always being correct" but think about it with BOs in mind and a belle-curve. In most cases the short distance will be disadvantageous to zerg. backdoors to main favor toss I see why you said this, but at the same time it goes hand in hand with Open areas favoring Zerg. 2 entrences opens a player to all sorts of harass. A trait of a strong Zerg player. Generally, the backdoors favor agressive play styles. They are a Ts worst nightmare. Usually it's the P/Z that are agressive. Ts tend to play the more slow/safe style of play. Massing 200/200, getting expands up and all that jazz, while a P/Z will most likely want to put a dent in that plan with harassment. In ZvP the aggressive one can be either the P or the Z., but usually the Z relys on sunkens for defence early game when it's the most fragile part of the game, much more than a P on cannons which tends to favor P. potential for harass favors terran I take it you mean reapers and maps like arid wastes? True, although protoss have more trouble than Zerg and Zerg can use it. Maybe it favors against Protoss more than it favors Terran. There is more to harassment than just simply reapers. Thorship, hellions, nukes, fast banshees, cute pushes that aim to kill expands are all at the Ts disposal. A well executed thorship is a nightmare for a Z. Sometimes it even makes you wonder if the game is actually balanced, that hard you're getting raped. Hydras, queens, sunkens all die in a matter of seconds to a thor on a cliff with a MULE repairing it. Z can forget about cliffing anyone until mid-T2 when oov drops and nydus doesn't become an all-in. Besides we don't have a unit with a decent range to cliff. Hydras have 6 rage while colossi and tanks 9 and 13 respectively. Cliffing is almost worthless to us because we can shut down mining from maybe 2-3 minerals and 1 gas when the P/T can out right kill the expand. P needs robotics for warp prisims, colossi and other jazz. Voids are getting countered more and more by Ts/Zs making the harass much less effective. mainbases with high money favors toss Why toss and not terran? It means the player doesn't need to expand as early, which is a terran trait. Could you elaborate on this? Simply because Ps tech is more expensive and 1-on-1 better than Ts. islands favor zerg As the other player said, it favors terran. It's too easy for a terran to lift off a CC, build a handful of missile turrets, and have a base that if nothing else will kill a ton of units before it goes down. I agree, this one probably favors T early game here, not Z. Late game probably Z because of nydus. safe natural favors zerg Again i'll return to the open ground argument. It may help a FE Zerg against an early harass, but in the long term having more easily harassed bases is good for the Zerg player. It's just zerg should be extremely focused on harass and leave chokepoints or well defended areas alone. In safe he means easily defendable, and a short distance from your main. Take DO as an example. Everyone has a hard time expoing there, but Z suffers most from it. The nat is so far away you'll need to be jumping back and forth between your main and nat to defend it. Making sunkens is a pain the ass. The distance is easily abusable by P/T when attacking. Also, Z expands faster than T/P which makes his expos naturally more prone to aggression and harassment. All the 3 races like safe expands. It's just that Z profits from them the most. | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
 | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Zaphid
Czech Republic1860 Posts
No, seriously, until you get to see 50+ matches on a map between progamers, it's extremely difficult to say whether it's balanced or not, because the possible builds on each and every map evolve too. | ||
|
Zoltan
United States656 Posts
Theres the link for polls if anyone wants to participate. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
when i make maps, i try to make design them to have far more open map spaces, much riskier gameplay, and make use of new sc2 features like watchtowers, rocks, cliffs and double cliffs, all in an effort to force players to be more aggressive, and punish those who decide to turtle or stick with "blob" play. i believe sc2 can live upto the playstyle found in sc1 - you just need maps like those in sc1 to promote that kind of play. when i make maps, i try to do the following: 1) Main - can (must) be wall-in'd - must have cliff access for reaper play - cliffs must be quickly scoutable by the player to avoid cheesy proxy pylon play - entrance must be easily attackable in some way by enemy (not susceptible to cheesy turtle play) - try as much as i can to make drop play viable - if nat is close by, have a small main (big main for far away nat) 2) Nat - close or far depending on size of main, but not too far for zerg players - easily defendable - must have wider entrances - hatch/cc/nexus cannot be sieged (mineral line can be) OR provide easy way to attack tanks/colossus if building is within vision 3) other expansions - far away - introduce risky play with limited minerals/gas/rocks 4) map in general - alot of paths for different attack vectors/flanking - wide open paths to prevent siege turtling and forcefield cheese - alot of useful watchtowers to provide vision for map, defense, scouting etc - far main distance to avoid cheesy rush plays like VR rush indeed, sometimes i laugh at the comments in map threads saying "lol siege tanks" or "so op for zerg". stop being such babies kplzthx? blizzard already babies players enough. its time for a change imo. time to make sc2 actually challenging, instead of having a bunch of D- players cheesing around in diamond rank. | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On July 01 2010 23:51 Latham wrote: Because T's marines and Ps Zealots are that much better than zerglings. Even if you opt to play 1 base you'll be forced to sunken up even a little bit or make early roaches which effectively rapes your economy in comparation to a T's or a P's giving you either safety (sunkens) or 1 cute timing push(roaches/banes) Speedlings eat early marines without a wall and because of Speedling/Zealot mechanics banelings are devestating to protoss. Zealot's main strength in a Zealot/speedling battle is that even semi-surrounded zealots can kill a couple lings before they die. If you baneling a group of zealots to 1/2 HP their effectiveness drops to closer to 1/4 or 1/5. Speedlings rape any other toss unit short of teir 2.5/3. In most cases the short distance will be disadvantageous to zerg. I think Zerg players just need to develop better 1 base plays, honestly. I find my ZvP to be borderline Imba and middle expansion over a FE to be competitive against Terran. backdoors, are a Ts worst nightmare. agreed. Usually the Z relys on sunkens for defence early game when it's the most fragile part of the game, much more than a P on cannons which tends to favor P. Honestly i don't really see that against toss. I mean I personally prefer to go all in against Toss. The way I see it is the Zerg wants the other player to go to the middle of the map early, before he can attack the zerg's back door. The Zerg player also can easily move out and put early pressure on the other player's backdoor. This forces the toss/terran to waste resources on cannons and defenses while forceing them to move back and forth to protect 2 entrences. The zerg player has no qualms about fighting in the open terrain. There is more to harassment than just simply reapers. Thorship, hellions, nukes, fast banshees, cute pushes that aim to kill expands are all at the Ts disposal. Fair enough, I think I just wasn't clear on what he meant. Its a bit vague. In safe he means easily defendable, and a short distance from your main. Take DO as an example. Everyone has a hard time expoing there, but Z suffers most from it. I see. Taken to the extremes like DO it does make it difficult for zerg, but how many maps take it to the extreme? Not many. In moderation, like most of the 4 player FFA maps such as Kulas, the open naturals provide a lot of tactical advantages for a Zerg that terran and protoss can't exploit as well. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
There is no such thing as "balance"! It doesnt exist between the races and certainly not for maps. You can only have maps / units which are not too imbalanced for a given combination of matchup / map / playing style preferences. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
they include islands, maybe in base expos, chokes, open areas, hard to take thirds and fourths, backdoors, cliffs at nats for harass, etc. Can anyone think of a good example of a map like that? I can. Lost Temple. it has cliffs. it has islands. it has open area in the center. it has easy to capture nat. it has large mains. it has high yield. it has chokes. it has stuff that make it a good map for all races. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On July 02 2010 02:06 Antares777 wrote: A balanced map includes EVERYTHING. they include islands, maybe in base expos, chokes, open areas, hard to take thirds and fourths, backdoors, cliffs at nats for harass, etc. Can anyone think of a good example of a map like that? I can. Lost Temple. it has cliffs. it has islands. it has open area in the center. it has easy to capture nat. it has large mains. it has high yield. it has chokes. it has stuff that make it a good map for all races. Antares gets it the closest I'd say. 'Balanced maps' really - in my mind, and I think in minds of most competent players is a map where multiple play styles are valid. 1 base tech, 2 base turtle, eco-heavy builds, rush builds, tech builds, and everything in between should all be viable - this is how one determines a balanced map. Can I go MMM + Thor with two base on game and have a viable chance at winning, and then the very next game go one base hard-tech to Banshee and still have a viable chance to win (obviously these are just examples). The point is that players should have the option to use a variety of play styles and builds - a map which allows this is generally balanced. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Maru vs SHIN
MaNa vs MaxPax
Maestros of the Game
Classic vs TriGGeR
Reynor vs SHIN
OSC
MaNa vs SHIN
SKillous vs ShoWTimE
Bunny vs TBD
Cham vs TBD
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Astrea
Classic vs sOs
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs Ryung
ByuN vs Zoun
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
GuMiho vs Cham
ByuN vs TriGGeR
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
