|
I had the opportunity to interview Stefan "MorroW" Andersson about the state of maps in StarCraft 2. I had planned to ask him a few questions, analyze a few maps from Map of the Month, and just have a nice, short interview, but it quickly developed into a much broader discussion about the state of mapping as a whole, spanning nearly four hours and 8,300 words*. So, without further ado, here goes:
![[image loading]](http://cult.razerzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/morrow.jpg) MorroW at IEM with a Large Cheque - picture credit missing
Hey MorroW! Thanks for talking to me today. You're widely respected as the one of the most vocal SC2 pros when it comes to balance, and you've been known to show the map community some love as well! Great to have you here today.
Hello, thanks, its great to be here ^^.
What are your plans in the near future?
Well, I’ll keep on doing what I do. Practice hard and attend many tournaments; online tournaments and hopefully a few lans ^^. And of course switch to protoss (jk).
I'd like to talk to you about the current Ladder map pool. What is your favorite map, and why?
My most favorite map in the map pool has to be Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis. I really like Metalopolis because it has so much open space and many expansions that are easily defended, but also very accessible for your opponent to harass and engage into. What I don’t like about Metalopolis is when I spawn close positions. Its very hard for us Zerg to take a 3rd base, and usually my Terran or Protoss opponent is forced to try to kill me with 2 bases because he cannot take a 3rd base either.
Xel’Naga caverns is more interesting with the terrain layout. The expansion areas are differently protected and can be stopped and harassed as well. Both these maps encourage macro styles, but there is much room for different play-styles as well.
NSPGenius recently leaked some new maps being considered for the GSL. In general, they seem to be designed for much longer games. Are these better than the Ladder maps? What concerns do you have about them?
I’m really concerned that they made them too large. Some of the GSL maps are a nice size, like SC1 maps, but other GSL maps are larger. I think the really large maps will create both uninteresting games as well as imbalance, because being aggressive can be too hard. Blizzard makes them too small, GSL maps are too large… maybe I’m just picky ^^.
Tal'Darim Altar has 20 expansions... to me at least that seems like way to many for competitive 1v1. In SC1, maps had 10-16 bases usually. 10 of course for the 2 player maps such as destination, and Othello for 4 player map but designed for 1x1 of course. I think the way SC2 is designed, even 16 bases will be too much for a 1v1.
Another thing I don’t like about the maps is the way they experiment with gold bases that have no Vespene. I think it is actually a terrible idea and I think its almost too early to start experimenting like that. Other than that I think the maps look pretty nice.
The Map of the Month Organization has pulled 5 top maps from Team Liquid's top map makers. Can I get your opinion of these maps?
Ok, I'll start with Pawn. It looks good, but what I don’t like is that the 4th base and fifth requires you to have map control in the center. All matchups work differently of course, but in PvZ it’s just very easy to take a 3rd base as a Protoss. It’s so far away from Zerg, and these ramps will make it pretty easily defendable. Zerg must respond with a 4th base, but its kinda hard to think out of a way to take a 4th easily. You really need center control, and Zerg can’t really keep up a permanent presence like Protoss or even Terran can. This map remind me of Xel’Naga Caverns, but without the possibility to harass the bases easily or make a big flank on Protoss to kill his 3rd base.
Some people compare Glacial Spike to Scrap Station. What's your take?
I think this map looks very nice. The distances are pretty far, but at same time, the natural has 2 entrances, so that kind of evens out. This map looks better than the last one. On Glacial Spike, I can see ways and patterns for each race to expand. In a dimensional map, you always want to have the option to expand further or to attack. I have a big main to harass and a 3rd base more open. The distance between 3rd and natural is nice, so that the aggressor can attack at different locations, like on Metalopolis.
One thing I wouldn’t mind is for the 4th base that’s between 3rd and natural to get a second ramp and a bit more space to it. The second ramp would kind of stick into the middle area, because at the moment it feels a bit weird and inaccessible. The cliffs are nice for harass too.
The Crucible is becoming popular among players.
This map looks very small. The 3rd bases are in the middle of the map. When the distance between my 3rd and my opponent's main is so close, its generally a sign of a small, cramped map. The rush distance can be very far, but what’s important are the key areas of the map. Basically, the location where u want to defend your 3rd base from. There’s the gold base that’s tankable by siege tanks from the opponents side of the map.
The ideas in the map I like, the reason for the layout, but it just seems that mapmakers in SC2 tend to make expos that are neutral. In SC1, expansions were rarely neutral. Take a map like Fighting Spirit from SC1. In close positions you had a "neutralish" expo in the middle of it. What made it not neutral was how the terrain around it was designed. In The Crucible, the gold base’s layout is symmetrical on both sides. The distance is just slightly different but that doesn’t matter much.
Decline has some interesting expansions, like a 3 gas expo in the NW and SE, and 1 gas expo in the SW and NE.
I just want to start off with, he thinks just like Blizzard ^^. How a map looks so cool and awesome as an overall map, but there’s some basic thing wrong with it. Here you have same flaw as Lost Temple and Metalopolis. Sure the map is good in far spots, but, if you end up spawning close positions here, there’s no 3rd base. Not only that, but there is no flank room. Imagine you have Roach and Hydras in PvZ close positions. He comes with 2 base Colossus timing push, where do you get a surround and flank? It’s just a tight small hallway, and that doesn’t work.
Let’s pretend there’s no close position spawns, like Shakuras. Now suddenly this map looks a lot better. It’s actually a bit "turtleish". What I mean by that is taking 5bases kinda gives me the lost temple feeling to it. Now much of this could be fixed just by improving the size between the close pos spawn locations, but I’d just open up the area more, like LT’s openness.
Mirage is the last of the MotM maps this month. It really seems to emphasize controlling key areas.
Lol. Ok ill try to focus ^^.
Haha, yeah the cat does that ^^
Now in Mirage, you actually have, just like we were discussing before, neutral bases. If you spawn vertically, in let’s say a TvZ, you can’t really take the 12 o’clock because it’s so friggin far, and the 9 o’clock is right in the middle of the 2 players, just like on Metal close positions.
In horizontal positions, you have a very nice 3rd base. I like the map quite a bit for horizontal, but vertically it gives me the kind of an in-your face playstyle vibe. He could improve the map by making the 12 and 6 o clock bases a bit closer into middle and increasing the size of the ramps outside the natural (the large ramps). It just seems a bit cramped around the middle, while the actual middle is nice and open. A Protoss is just going to walk around the border, and as long as he avoids stepping on the cat sand box in middle he’ll be fine. Theres no flanking room.
All of these maps are less Blizzardish, but not really SC1 maps. They are somewhere in the middle.
Well that leads us to the Big Question. Would you like to play on these maps in tournaments and on the ladder?
Well, anything is better than Steppes of War ^^. Or LT or Metal close positions. Or Delta Quadrant… haha. I guess these maps could turn out nicely, but the overall feeling that I get from these maps is that they weren’t created by high level players. Glacial Spike is the map I like most of these, because I can picture in my head how each race will defend and attack different bases.
What do you think of the SC2 iCCup Monthly Map pool?
Well, some maps are a lot better than others. But all of them have things that must be improved. The idea behind Sungsu Crossing is very interesting. Obsidian Inferno is just a straight up idea of a map... Well let me put it this way: what it has right now is fine, but I think there are ways to make the map more interesting. iCCup Europa interests me a lot, and I think this map idea has potential. But the common issue again is these expos in middle require constant map control. Europa definitely stands out from the others I think. I love Match Point, but I don’t think mineral-only expansions work in SC2.
As a mapmaker, I think it makes a lot of sense to think, “Ok, this will be a small expo, like 5 patches and 1 geyser.” But whenever I play maps like that, I just hate it. If we (as players and as mappers) state out what we want, then we can focus on making maps, rather than making maps without knowing how they should look.
Well, what are some of the issues with the current maps? Why do people complain about them?
Well the most general issue people have with the maps here in the e-sport community is that they are very small, so defending rushes and establishing an economic game is quite difficult. Later on in a match, the main issue is establishing a 3rd base, which is quite hard in some circumstances.
Which maps are the worst about that? Besides Steppes of course ^^.
Delta Quadrant is very difficult for someone to expand even once, and the distance between your opponent and self is so ridiculously short that it hurts play a lot. Lost Temple and Metalopolis, in close positions suffer. DQ does have pleasant 3rd bases though. You have maps like jungle basin where taking your 2nd base is quite fine, and people like that. But because the 3rd base is so close to your opponent, it often makes the midgame quite difficult for the one trying to get further economy. When you actually say that double expanding as Zerg (after your natural) is the best way to take a 3rd base, it just means that the layout of the map is terrible.
So for a map-making community, you think that SC1 maps are the way to start. What about after that? Crossfire is an SC1 port and is being considered for GSL, do you like that map?
Well, Crossfire is a very old school map. I think it’s best to look at these "newer" maps which brought in the real macro games, and find out what made them so popular and work so well, what made it possible to attack and defend. Off the top of my head, pretty much all of them from 2008 onwards would be good starts. But they would of course need tweaking. People should just focus at trying to create maps that are macro oriented and gives an opportunity to take expansions. People aren’t asking for much in maps right now, but where our current maps fail is on a very basic level.
Do you think mappers should have a standard map style, and go from there to make their own maps?
Yeah, exactly. Whenever you think about a map concept, you should think about the simple stuff, and then get more into it. People aren’t asking for Xel’Naga towers covered in high grass that are accessible through destroying rocks. People are just asking for maps that can let them play standard straight up macro games without any bullshit added. If I play lost temple cross positions, I think, “ok, absolutely great - except this fucking cliff drop.” If I play Metalopolis i say ok good, unless he’s in close positions. That’s why Xel’Naga is the most popular and all-around solid map. It doesn’t have any obvious flaws that make people hate it ^^.
Thats a good lesson for mappers to take away: Keep it simple, not too gimmicky, and people will like it ^^.
Then, in like 6 months, people will ask for more and more from the maps. Mapping should go through a natural course, where you keep adding and changing. SC1 had Python, then later on came plasma, and finally new school maps with egg blocks and neutral arbiters just placed out on standard macro maps to make them more interesting, and I hope mapmakers in SC2 think the same way.
Actually, I think the reason why balancing is nearly impossible is because of ZvP. If you have too much flanking room, toss army loses; if it’s too tight, FF and colossus absolutely demolishes everything. It’s a lot harder to design maps than in SC1 because its sooo much about the flanking space etc. Xel’Naga has open spaces but also tight places, that’s why it’s so good.
To be completely honest I have no obvious answer. I just think there are obvious flaws in the current maps that people hate. Designing good maps in SC2… it feels sort of impossible to balance for ZvP late game. It takes a huge fucking area for a Zerg to fight a Protoss late-game. With a 180+ food Protoss deathball, all maps will feel cramped.
I almost feel SC2 would be best off just having different maps for different matchups, because a ZvP is so different from TvZ and PvT. In SC1, if you had a 3rd base with a small choke, it would help defend for all races vs all races. Sunkens and Lurkers would make it defendable for Zerg, walls and Siege Tanks for Terran, and wall, Cannon, and Storm for Protoss. But in SC2 they defend the expansions so differently -Terran and Protoss want it tight, and Zerg wants a huge area to flank outside of the expo. Thats why I think it’s almost impossible to balance it.
Well, we have to try! I really appreciate you taking the time for this great interview, even though it kind of turned into a huge discussion ^^. Any last words or shout outs you want to give?
^^. When I was only Terran, it was easier for me to see maps and say, “this is good, this is bad.” But now that I really understand Z on a top-level, everything is just too complicated; I think everything is bad in one way or another. As a Terran, I see Metalopolis' 3rd base as extremely open. But when I think as a Zerg, I think, "Wow, this needs to become even larger to battle against Colossus & force field."
That’s probably the most depressing shout out you’ll ever hear lol.
I will say that if we merged the community's high level pro-gamers along with mapmakers and their creative touch into 1 big brain, I think it would give amazing results. Pro-gamers need to be active in the map community, explaining what they want and why.
That would benefit everybody - mappers and players. Well, thanks again for this terrific interview MorroW. Good luck in the future!
*It was a very long discussion, and I've put my favorite, and imo key, parts here. Big thanks yet again to MorroW for spending so long talking with me!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Some nice input there 
|
Nice interview, thanks for posting it!
|
Ahh the ZvP flanking thing. Force fields can really turn the tide of the battle in 1 go.
|
Very nice. Morrow's my favourite player, so good to read his insights ^^
MorroW Fighting!
|
Thank you for posting this! ^^
He brings up alot of good points about why maps are so hard to really make.
|
ohh what a good interview. Morrow is an extremely smart and talented person. Not to mention hardworking. Really looking forward to 2011 when for the first time he will be a full time progamer (Mapmaker). I think he will make even more waves.
I agree with Morrow's sentiment about PvZ the most. In PvZ as Zerg, you want your 2nd to be as far as possible, but you need the P's 3rd to be near and open otherwise they can defend it so easily with a few colossus / ff.
If Jungle Basin is not so narrow and full of chokes and slightly bigger, i think it will be an awesome map for Z.
|
I agree with gold with no gas is absolutely horrible. There's really small incentive for Zerg to take such a base, and Terran can MULE the gold expansion and pump marines. I may be biased since I'm a Zerg player myself, but think about it, on all these maps, Protoss, and especially Terran go for that gold expo because... why not? I see more zergs going for the non-gold expo on xelnaga and Terran's go for the gold all the time because.. why? Perfect expo spot for PF, not to mention gold expo = more marines faster.
|
I think Morrow's concerns about ZvP map design is more of a Blizzard trying to force poor maps then having to rebalance the game around these poor maps instead of balancing for any scale map.
|
Really good interview and insightful answers by morrow. After he killed Idra with 5rax reaper people kinda seemed to forget that this kid was really good at BW.
|
Stuff like this is really important... It's practically impossible to reliably balance maps for the highest levels of play without any pro-gamer input. We need more of this.
|
Awesome thread, he gives tons of specific examples. He makes a huge, great point:
"I will say that if we merged the community's high level pro-gamers along with mapmakers and their creative touch into 1 big brain, I think it would give amazing results. Pro-gamers need to be active in the map community, explaining what they want and why."
While also doing exactly that. 10/10 interview, even though I sort of hated him since IEM or whatever.
p.s. 20 expos wtf? i dread the tvt's some people will have to watch (and worse... play) on that beast.
|
More maps like xel-naga!!! Gogogo!!!
I agree with Morrow, in that we need to get back to the basics of map making, before exploring the complexity we see in the current brood war map pool. Keep it simple, then expand over time when players get comfortable.
You can't jump from 1 to 5 you have to go through 2, 3, 4, first. Map progression is necessary if we ever want any kind of balance in SC2.
|
Nice interview, interesting to hear Morrow's insight.
|
Wow!! So High-level!! I barely understood what MoRRoW was talkin about at first... But then I went to look at the maps and read the article simultaneously and so much knowledge was dropped on my ass! Now I reaally apppreciate all the map-makers out there.
Thanks Morrow and iGrok!!
SOme advice for OP- If you can add the jpeg of each map while hes talking about them, that'd be just spiffy!!
I had to search for the maps to actually understand wat he was talkin about. Would help other noobs like me. Ty again!
Edit: Facepalm! Just noticed the links....
|
You can click on the underlined name of each map - it'll take you to a picture of each
|
Good interview, interesting answers.
|
One of the few people that can talk about balance without making it sound like whining.
|
Can't we just create metalopolis with only cross positions  ? Anyway he makes some great points and I fully agree that everyone, including Blizzard, need to come together and work things out.
|
Morrow made 1 good point that most people will overlook, so I will restate its significance:
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible.
You cannot design 1 map that suits all the races. Races do not have the versatility that they had in BW.
Remember in BW how a large open area in TvP was death for terran, so T would use mines and hug a wall to turn the attack path into a narrow corridor? Another example: Zerg has a very narrow bridge to one 3rd, and a line of cliffs to another. He'll go for the cliff 3rd if he makes muta or the bridge 3rd if he opens lurker.
Zerg doesn't have a choice of openings in sc2. Terran doesn't have tools for blocking terrain movement. All chokes are protoss favored no matter what because of FF and storm/colossi. The lack of versatility of unit choice, because unit choice is more dependent on what your opponent makes than what you want to do with your expanding, kills map design.
What Morrow is suggesting is that we have separate maps for each MU, but that's ridiculous.
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
|
Huge effort by both involved, much appreciated. And a great read. Thanks!
|
nice interview and some very valid points on problems with the 5 MotM maps. it would really help the mapmaking community to get a lot more input from higher level players.
most important thing for me ist: mapping needs time, because there won't be any map coming out perfectly. it depends on play and how players change their play and maps need to be changed accodingly. in the current stage it is really hard to say (from a map maker's perspective) what will work how, because this game still is quite new.
al that got me really thinking about Decline and the close spawn 'problem' - well: again...
|
Really good interview. Hopefully maps will become bigger concern in 2011. It would be awesome if progamers like morrow would analyze popular custom maps to make them even better!
|
Canada5565 Posts
Cool, great read. MorroW is such a manner guy.
|
On January 13 2011 20:32 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
I think it's exactly this. Blizzard was too short sighted with Beta and balancing. They focused on balancing around the maps they are forcing down the communities throat instead of balancing around the races themselves. I don't really see them making the sweeping changes they need to know because they wasted so much time nerfing imbalanced rushes due to their map pool.
It's a bit sad but I don't see how custom maps can be implemented in SC2 without help from Blizzard.
|
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible
If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having some maps that favour a certain matchup is fine. In BW, these maps are everywhere and it is still used now. However, they cannot be the majority of the maps.
I believe Morrow has said that the solution is to have maps that incorporate different features like Xelnaga. It has both open areas as well as tiny chokes. Therefore, it became up to the players to take the fight where they have the advantage which means testing their positioning skills and decision making. In a way Shakuras fulfill this criteria because it has wide open areas in the middle but tiny chokes elsewhere especially between the rocks.
Thats why Xelnaga and Shakuras are the best maps nowadays.
|
Wicked interview, discussion of maps is such an important thing for the SC2 scene, and the community is lucky to have a progamer who is also a mapper. GO MORROW.
Also, his ZvP is incredible.
|
Awesome interview!
For there to be a real balance, there should never be an equal outcome of a battle.
The maps should have both large flank areas and thin narrow areas and the outcome of the battle should depend on the players picking where to have the battlefield.
|
On January 13 2011 21:37 dtz wrote:Show nested quote +Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible
If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having some maps that favour a certain matchup is fine. In BW, these maps are everywhere and it is still used now. However, they cannot be the majority of the maps. I believe Morrow has said that the solution is to have maps that incorporate different features like Xelnaga. It has both open areas as well as tiny chokes. Therefore, it became up to the players to take the fight where they have the advantage which means testing their positioning skills and decision making. In a way Shakuras fulfill this criteria because it has wide open areas in the middle but tiny chokes elsewhere especially between the rocks. Thats why Xelnaga and Shakuras are the best maps nowadays.
Yes but you realize the things that made maps "imbalanced" for one race over another in BW were insignificant compared to the things that make SC2 maps imbalanced. We're talking about locations of the logical 4th in TvP on HBR for example. Remember how they shifted the base positions for those mineral only's?
Compare this to Delta Quadrant, where zerg can't even expand.
|
On January 13 2011 20:32 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Morrow made 1 good point that most people will overlook, so I will restate its significance:
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible.
You cannot design 1 map that suits all the races. Races do not have the versatility that they had in BW.
Remember in BW how a large open area in TvP was death for terran, so T would use mines and hug a wall to turn the attack path into a narrow corridor? Another example: Zerg has a very narrow bridge to one 3rd, and a line of cliffs to another. He'll go for the cliff 3rd if he makes muta or the bridge 3rd if he opens lurker.
Zerg doesn't have a choice of openings in sc2. Terran doesn't have tools for blocking terrain movement. All chokes are protoss favored no matter what because of FF and storm/colossi. The lack of versatility of unit choice, because unit choice is more dependent on what your opponent makes than what you want to do with your expanding, kills map design.
What Morrow is suggesting is that we have separate maps for each MU, but that's ridiculous.
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
What an awesome post. I feel like map imbalance has much to do with the fact that all 3 races are pretty one dimensional. Depending on match-up, some may have multiple builds but pretty much the same core philosophy.
|
Excellent interview this thread should be spotlighted.
|
Wow, excellent interview. I love all the insight in this one.
Hope the map makers get more feedback from the pro gamers in the future, so they can create BW level material.
|
Nice interview and insights from Morrow. Dunno if Morrow or anyone will read this, but a question in regards to map design I was curious about. I know Morrow said it was too early to be experimenting with things like no gas golds and such but I wondered what he thought of say rich vespenes. Obviously very early game build orders are balanced around 2 gas in the main, so that probably has to be standard. But what if every expand was 1 rich vespene instead of 2 regular? Who would this help? For say zerg, they could more realistically take a bunch of bases and put 3 drones on gas and get a fairly big but not full 2 regular gas boost instead of needing a full 6 to "saturate" the gas. Of course other races could benefit too but was just curious if the needing a few less workers and going more broodwar style in that regard how it would affect starcraft 2 in morrow or a high level player's opinion.
|
Really nice interview, Morrow has some great insights.
His experience as a mapmaker, top level Terran and a top level Zerg really shows when he comments on the maps. Not saying his word is 100% correct but he makes some great points.
|
Whats funny is if they make these maps part of gsl, terrans will get run over by zerg and protoss (if the maps are to large) because terran works best at close positions. Blizzard will then have to balance over third party maps. I just really dont see that going anywhere.
|
The big maps worry me when it comes to balance overall, yes things need to change but the ones they are adding are incredibly big for 1v1, and the layouts need to be more neutral so it doesn't cater to one race specifically.
An example would be crossfire, i played a lot on this map the last couple days and i cant see any way a protoss could lose on this map. The expo is easy to grab which is not a bad thing, but then the map is nothing but choke points making it ridiculously easy to abuse fast colossi +FF or HT storms. It doesn't matter if the enemy macros better when you are forced to always attack through a choke getting melted by AOE and cut into pieces by forcefields.
|
In Brood War it was possible to create a synergy between the Races and the maps. With SC2 you are trying to align that synergy over the Race, the map and the the racial mechanic. It is additionally complicated by the Protoss dual marco mechanic.
As a Terran player, I personally dont feel playing on open maps vs. Zerg is, or would be, auto loss, Terran's need to evolve a higher quality of technical play. And thats true for Zerg and Protoss as well - but I hardly see that happening on the ladder maps that currently exist - they are constricting the game into a very narrow channel of play: watching pro-level play at the moment too often reminds me of two stone-club wielding Neanderthals fighting in a phonebox.
ps. Remove the centre 4 destructible rocks and replace the main backdoors with cliffs and I will like Shakuras Plateau, feels like its half the map it could be at the moment.
|
On January 14 2011 00:16 Darpa wrote:
Whats funny is if they make these maps part of gsl, terrans will get run over by zerg and protoss (if the maps are to large) because terran works best at close positions. Blizzard will then have to balance over third party maps. I just really dont see that going anywhere.
No that's the best case you could possibly have. Terran SHOULDN'T be forced into having to win early game or having to have close positions in order to win. They should have the tools to win regardless of map size if they are skilled enough. The error in Blizzards design is that they are/have balanced for this specific map pool so that's why there are issues.
In BW it wasn't so much the size of the map that favoured the race, it was the terrain and positioning. As others have mentioned Terran didn't want to engage P in the open but sometimes they did so they used mines to limit movement. This is exactly the kind of thing that races should have in SC2. Protoss have Forcefields which creates chokes even if there are none.
If Blizzard however choose to ignore their balance faults then there might be an issue. Saying that Blizzard will then rebalance stuff is an issue is very very wrong. That's a very good thing. Most of the beta was spend fixing imbalanced rushes which would have been easily fixed via a better map pool. They wasted their time because they were too stubborn to fix the real issues.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
People need to stop thinking that what is perceived as "fact" now is what will always be known as fact. Some things will stay the same but many things change. That's what makes a good RTS game great.
|
Most interesting interview in a while, thanks for sharing.
|
Another thing I don’t like about the maps is the way they experiment with gold bases that have no Vespene. I think it is actually a terrible idea and I think its almost too early to start experimenting like that. Other than that I think the maps look pretty nice.
Anyone try that 3v3 Beta map that has two really risky gold mineral patches AND NO GAS?
Why the hell would someone put no gas on gold mineral patches. If you can take a gold in 3v3, you deserve the fucking gas.
|
verry nice interview, i thinks morrow make verry good point here :
I almost feel SC2 would be best off just having different maps for different matchups, because a ZvP is so different from TvZ and PvT. In SC1, if you had a 3rd base with a small choke, it would help defend for all races vs all races. Sunkens and Lurkers would make it defendable for Zerg, walls and Siege Tanks for Terran, and wall, Cannon, and Storm for Protoss. But in SC2 they defend the expansions so differently -Terran and Protoss want it tight, and Zerg wants a huge area to flank outside of the expo. Thats why I think it’s almost impossible to balance it.
|
I like these types of interviews where it goes beyond normal, relatively superficial questions. Thanks!
|
Morrow is gosu even for his interviews. It was really interesting
|
I do like the point he made, that we should focus on good, solid macro maps until we actually figure out how to make those, and only then incorporate some of the gimmicky stuff. There are too many of the custom maps out there that worry so much about some weird trick and are just awful apart from that.
|
Wow this gotta be the most profound analysis of the current map situation and map making in general that I've heard. I especially loved the comparison to SC1 where maps in the end seemed to be almost balanced, but due to their particular structure still encouraged SO many different kinds of play styles, and not just either rush or macro strategies.
Also the part about the gimmicky features of a lot of the maps was spot on. Until map makers really fathom how exactly maps influence balance in SC2, the focus shouldn't be on grasses and random amazing looking textures and stuff, but instead working the basic things.
Just a great interview.
|
Morrow provided some truly insightful answers! Good interview and i hope maps will improve. Force Fields be damned!
|
Wow... I can see my post on the front page of TL ^^. That's a good feeling.
|
On January 13 2011 20:32 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Morrow made 1 good point that most people will overlook, so I will restate its significance:
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible.
You cannot design 1 map that suits all the races. Races do not have the versatility that they had in BW.
Remember in BW how a large open area in TvP was death for terran, so T would use mines and hug a wall to turn the attack path into a narrow corridor? Another example: Zerg has a very narrow bridge to one 3rd, and a line of cliffs to another. He'll go for the cliff 3rd if he makes muta or the bridge 3rd if he opens lurker.
Zerg doesn't have a choice of openings in sc2. Terran doesn't have tools for blocking terrain movement. All chokes are protoss favored no matter what because of FF and storm/colossi. The lack of versatility of unit choice, because unit choice is more dependent on what your opponent makes than what you want to do with your expanding, kills map design.
What Morrow is suggesting is that we have separate maps for each MU, but that's ridiculous.
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
See I disagree with him there. I feel that the way the metagame is right now, protosses never really going high templar versus zerg for one thing, zvp feels the way he described. If they went high templar, I think it would be much different. The metagame is too young at the moment to say that zerg will win in an open area, protoss will win in a tight area. If it's roach hydra corrupter versus gateway army and colossus with force fields he's right. And that's all we see right now. That doesn't mean that has to be the only thing we see.
|
On January 14 2011 00:16 Darpa wrote:
Whats funny is if they make these maps part of gsl, terrans will get run over by zerg and protoss (if the maps are to large) because terran works best at close positions. Blizzard will then have to balance over third party maps. I just really dont see that going anywhere.
No, not really. See MVP's games today. If the maps are very big, Terrans can abuse mass orbitals. It might not be very popular yet but the mule mechanics certainly does not put them on a disadvantage with them being able to get pure 200/200 army and still have an economy.
Morrow' concern is more about the playstyle becoming very dry/boring/turtlefest because harass/drops will be more ineffective which is very valid.
|
heh... no disrespect but, umm, this dude has a HUGE Zerg bias... he likes maps that you can expo, and expo safely, all the way to 4th...
He has some good points otherwise. I too, like glacial spike.
|
Great interview - would love to see MorroW's thoughts on the GSL maps that are ingame now.
|
"Pro-gamers need to be active in the map community, explaining what they want and why."
This is a summation of why i like this interview so much! Thank you morrow! I really appreciate the time you took to explain these kinds of things to us!
However, sadly I don't think we will see different maps for different match ups any time soon,
HOWEVER IDEA: What if players just used destructible rocks more in chokes? that way, the zerg could knock it down for more space, and the terran and toss could leave them up for tighter chokes. Adjusting the map based on the player. Not just using rocks for new paths. Just like how lurker eggs work with wall offs in sc1
|
On January 14 2011 03:54 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 20:32 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Morrow made 1 good point that most people will overlook, so I will restate its significance:
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible.
You cannot design 1 map that suits all the races. Races do not have the versatility that they had in BW.
Remember in BW how a large open area in TvP was death for terran, so T would use mines and hug a wall to turn the attack path into a narrow corridor? Another example: Zerg has a very narrow bridge to one 3rd, and a line of cliffs to another. He'll go for the cliff 3rd if he makes muta or the bridge 3rd if he opens lurker.
Zerg doesn't have a choice of openings in sc2. Terran doesn't have tools for blocking terrain movement. All chokes are protoss favored no matter what because of FF and storm/colossi. The lack of versatility of unit choice, because unit choice is more dependent on what your opponent makes than what you want to do with your expanding, kills map design.
What Morrow is suggesting is that we have separate maps for each MU, but that's ridiculous.
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game? See I disagree with him there. I feel that the way the metagame is right now, protosses never really going high templar versus zerg for one thing, zvp feels the way he described. If they went high templar, I think it would be much different. The metagame is too young at the moment to say that zerg will win in an open area, protoss will win in a tight area. If it's roach hydra corrupter versus gateway army and colossus with force fields he's right. And that's all we see right now. That doesn't mean that has to be the only thing we see.
.... What, "The metagame is too young at the moment to say that zerg will win in an open area, protoss will win in a tight area." the way the units are designed , as well as basic spells (FORCE FIELD) favor protoss units in small areas,
Did you play much sc1? because templar function the same now as they did then, so we know how they actually function... It would be the same.
and if you're talking about air units for toss, then smaller areas favor air units anyways.
|
most of the points he made were good
the one thing i really had a big problem with was the QQ about LT natural being tankable and asking for maps you can straight-up macro without worrying about truly dangerous harass. too much zerg bias for my taste, get off it please. bw tournament maps had cliffs all over where you could dragoon drop, tank drop, etc., and huge open spaces in the main behind minerals where you could drop anything with all 3 races 24/7. you need this kind of thing for strategical development of the game, make everyone be able to take their nat easymode and take it from there and you can start televising sc on the tree channel, plus it won't solve anything except change what race is favored in random XvX matchup. you can't balance the game for macro-only games, it strips it of much of its complexity
the one thing i really liked on the other hand was the issue of strong map imbalance for various matchups that he raised. i do think sc2 has some basic design flaws on the level of the core mechanics of each race which cause all these problems. and i don't think this can be solved until the introduction of new units to the game to change the dynamics of all matchups. till that time though, the guy makes a good point that progamers need to be involved with the mapmaking community, and after all the qq from all 3 directions (races) is ironed out, get good maps that feel comfortable for both 1/2-base play and long macro games without too large a bias for any one race.
the map balance by the community (especially the pros and tournament organizers) needs to get ahead of the race balance by the game developer imo, so that the game may evolve in a direction more suited to the esports' scene requirements and expectations, and not be so dependent on blizz's unreliable and static ladder
|
I´d like to take this opportunity to encourage all skilled players to stop by the Custom Maps forum every once in a while. I dare say, we have some of the most talented mappers in the world posting right here on teamliquid.net (well, along with a few newbs as well), but in order to evolve, they really need your help with testing and feedback.
Look for the [M] tag for melee maps.
|
On January 14 2011 04:30 DarkGeneral wrote:
heh... no disrespect but, umm, this dude has a HUGE Zerg bias... he likes maps that you can expo, and expo safely, all the way to 4th...
He has some good points otherwise. I too, like glacial spike.
I dont see how you can say MorroW has a zerg bias when he played terran at an extremely high level for so long. I think he understands z, t and mapmaking overall pretty well. if pros really want better maps, they should give constructive input like that found in this interview, instead of just complaining.
|
Morrow has some good points for sure, I think a combination using destructible doodads and xelnaga/shakuras like maps will be a good way to try and fine tune map balance.
|
On January 14 2011 04:30 DarkGeneral wrote:
heh... no disrespect but, umm, this dude has a HUGE Zerg bias... he likes maps that you can expo, and expo safely, all the way to 4th...
He has some good points otherwise. I too, like glacial spike.
If the zerg can safely expand, then what's stopping the other races?
Good insight from Morrow, I'd like to see some SC2 maps from him.
|
On January 14 2011 03:54 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 20:32 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Morrow made 1 good point that most people will overlook, so I will restate its significance:
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible.
You cannot design 1 map that suits all the races. Races do not have the versatility that they had in BW.
Remember in BW how a large open area in TvP was death for terran, so T would use mines and hug a wall to turn the attack path into a narrow corridor? Another example: Zerg has a very narrow bridge to one 3rd, and a line of cliffs to another. He'll go for the cliff 3rd if he makes muta or the bridge 3rd if he opens lurker.
Zerg doesn't have a choice of openings in sc2. Terran doesn't have tools for blocking terrain movement. All chokes are protoss favored no matter what because of FF and storm/colossi. The lack of versatility of unit choice, because unit choice is more dependent on what your opponent makes than what you want to do with your expanding, kills map design.
What Morrow is suggesting is that we have separate maps for each MU, but that's ridiculous.
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game? See I disagree with him there. I feel that the way the metagame is right now, protosses never really going high templar versus zerg for one thing, zvp feels the way he described. If they went high templar, I think it would be much different. The metagame is too young at the moment to say that zerg will win in an open area, protoss will win in a tight area. If it's roach hydra corrupter versus gateway army and colossus with force fields he's right. And that's all we see right now. That doesn't mean that has to be the only thing we see.
Protoss never go Storm in ZvP because the need the gas to kill roaches. Roaches have so much HP and move so quickly they can easily storm dodge taking minimal damage and then burrow to heal. Collosi on the other hand rape roaches.
|
On January 13 2011 19:48 Vei wrote:
p.s. 20 expos wtf? i dread the tvt's some people will have to watch (and worse... play) on that beast.
I would cry. I would need to reserve like 2 hours of my time just for one game.
|
Eh I actually Steps of War, but the expansion is crazy to denfend with two drops in there.
|
I was a terran that recently switched to zerg for perspective...and I absolutely agree with MorroW. It really feels like almost every map is too cramped for Z, and in fact, this could be a big reason why we don't see as many Zs making it to the top of the GSL...however, I think the GSL should really wait until blizzard releases a new map pool (possibly for season 2 of the ladder?) before adding new maps to theirs. How are we going to ladder on those maps and practice those maps, say for instance, if we ever want to try and get into the GSL?
Unless of course, there's eventually player and organization-designed ladders on b.net that individuals can join with their own unique map pools. Hopefully so.
|
Great interview.
Further reinforces my opinion that SC2 is nowhere near done and that HotS and LotV will almost need to add way more options and diversity for the races. And I have faith that they'll do just that.
|
Solid input. But you can not make a map that isn't a little bit more favored towards a certain race. The game is just built in a way where one race will have there ideal terrain.
|
On January 14 2011 05:10 TheNessman wrote:
HOWEVER IDEA: What if players just used destructible rocks more in chokes? that way, the zerg could knock it down for more space, and the terran and toss could leave them up for tighter chokes. Adjusting the map based on the player. Not just using rocks for new paths. Just like how lurker eggs work with wall offs in sc1
In fact this is already being tested on some of the new gsl maps, check 'em out. Now if I recall it was to adjust the size of the entrance to the nat...
there is a lot of room to exapand with this, if lanes of attack had rocks, so that say zerg could go out of his way to break though down on his end to ease defnece... awesome
|
Great interview! I look forward to seeing more input from MorroW in the map making community's future endeavors. 
On January 14 2011 05:23 Johanaz wrote:I´d like to take this opportunity to encourage all skilled players to stop by the Custom Maps forum every once in a while. I dare say, we have some of the most talented mappers in the world posting right here on teamliquid.net (well, along with a few newbs as well), but in order to evolve, they really need your help with testing and feedback. Look for the [M] tag for melee maps.
Here here! I'd like to encourage everyone to do just that.
|
This was a great interview. Gave me lots to think about. Will definitely try to apply this kind of insight to current and future maps. Thanks for your time and work!
|
Really insightful interview. I have to agree that with the new mechanics in SC2 map balancing is a lot more difficult, with all of the creep tumor spreading and unit warp-ins mechanism. Hopefully the new GSL maps will turn out fine.
|
I wonder what happen if someone ported all current BW maps to SC2. Will they work?
|
There are actually quite a few ports. Most of them don't work. Take Python for example.
But BW maps are good places to start figuring out what works.
|
Good interview, good read.
On a side note does anyone know if Othello has been ported over to sc2 yet? Me and my friends played that one all the time in BW. =)
|
On January 14 2011 04:17 dtz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2011 00:16 Darpa wrote:
Whats funny is if they make these maps part of gsl, terrans will get run over by zerg and protoss (if the maps are to large) because terran works best at close positions. Blizzard will then have to balance over third party maps. I just really dont see that going anywhere. No, not really. See MVP's games today. If the maps are very big, Terrans can abuse mass orbitals. It might not be very popular yet but the mule mechanics certainly does not put them on a disadvantage with them being able to get pure 200/200 army and still have an economy. Morrow' concern is more about the playstyle becoming very dry/boring/turtlefest because harass/drops will be more ineffective which is very valid.
I dont think thats true, mVP is an exceptional player, and its not the economy that im concerned with. In the Late game, effective terran units are worthless against Protoss or Zerg units and, not nearly as good in terms of production or army repop. They need to push an advantage early game to make even ground in the late game unit count and composition. That will be affected in my opinion by map size, as terran wont be able to push early to even the grounds.
|
Very in depth review which is sure to help budding (and seasoned) map makers create some good maps!
I did notice a lot of his focus was on ZvP.... Possibly done a bit of homework for the upcomming redit event.
As a very average Zerg player, I struggle to find the space I need at times. I suppose thats another thing to seperate the real deal from the pretenders - find the space, and engage in the right points of the map.
|
Too zerg bias for my taste, although I do agree on a few things.
|
Is it just me or does Glacial Spike kind of feel like Dreamliner?
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50118 Posts
On January 14 2011 10:58 The_Piper42 wrote:
Is it just me or does Glacial Spike kind of feel like Dreamliner?
its exactly what it feels like to me too.but dreamliner could work in SC2.
|
Australia8532 Posts
Wow really impressed iGrok - this makes me even more excited for the MotM tournament!!
His feedback on the maps/map pool/custom maps is invaluable and i really hope the map making community stops by this interview.. Having custom maps "audited" by pros is never a bad idea (yes you get race biases but the insight is great)..
All up an awesome interview
|
I almost feel SC2 would be best off just having different maps for different matchups, because a ZvP is so different from TvZ and PvT. In SC1, if you had a 3rd base with a small choke, it would help defend for all races vs all races. Sunkens and Lurkers would make it defendable for Zerg, walls and Siege Tanks for Terran, and wall, Cannon, and Storm for Protoss. But in SC2 they defend the expansions so differently -Terran and Protoss want it tight, and Zerg wants a huge area to flank outside of the expo. Thats why I think it’s almost impossible to balance it.
I will just note one thing on this point.
Terrans in BW according to this defended ramps with tanks and protoss defended with cannons and strom.
Both of these are available BEFORE brood war.
For zerg to defend a ramp based on this quote the needed lurkers which is after brood war.
In short according to morrow the zerg could not defend a ramp until brood war. (This is of course ignoring how imba mutas were pre brood war)
So likewise what a lot of people have been saying lets at least wait for the expansions to come out first. Remember blizzard plays this game too and they encounter similar problems when they play therefore they will likely recognize that the zerg can't defend a ramp efficiently and this will influence the types of units added in HOTS
|
Dominican Republic913 Posts
wow a lot of knowledge about maps
|
I've not gotten to play MP yet (older computer = no can handle maxed armies), so take what I have to say here with a grain of salt. Okay, qualifications aside:
One thing MorroW said was basically, "Macro maps please." = Get the "basic layout" ironed out before we go into crazy mode. Get to Python before we try to make Destination. Two points here. First, I'd argue that "weird maps" are more a product of early days (look at Brood War: we just don't have maps like Bifrost any more; even Gladiator & Pathfinder don't have anything on, say, Plasma when considering their "non-standard quotient". Part of determining what works is determining what doesn't - and it's not necessarily going to be the case that SC2 plays out as a macro RTS "just like BroodWar". I could see, for instance, SC2 developing in such a way that "balance" means 15 minute max, tiny maps, low minerals, high micro play or something - although this is at least partly me consciously trying to avoid thinking "macro RTS is better RTS".
Second, let's assume for a minute that SC2 balance & development does play out so that macro games are standard (standard standard, 85% of games standard, not just "possible option"). I see people saying MorroW's asking for (basically) safe macro maps is "favoring Zerg too much" and stuff. I realize this is a possibility (see the "safe 3 gas" balance argument about Zerg in BW), but wouldn't it make sense to make this hypothetical map (the SC2 version of Colosseum or Fighting Spirit) and see what happens?
|
His thought process is incredibly one sided towards zerg, of course mineral expansions dont work if you're zerg!! Of course big open maps with a billion expos and a ten hour rush distance makes zerg absoloutely unbeatable. Its been proven time after time that in a straight up, no harass, no pressure game that zerg will completely DESTROY terran. Why would you want to encourage that?
|
It seems a lot of the current maps could be made better just by forcing opposite horizontal spawns, like on Shakuras Plateau.
One other thought that occurred to me, were there not three player maps used in SC1 that made for interesting play?
|
On January 14 2011 14:36 Galaxy77 wrote:
His thought process is incredibly one sided towards zerg, of course mineral expansions dont work if you're zerg!! Of course big open maps with a billion expos and a ten hour rush distance makes zerg absoloutely unbeatable. Its been proven time after time that in a straight up, no harass, no pressure game that zerg will completely DESTROY terran. Why would you want to encourage that?
Yeah I agree, it is a good interview but it sort of "favors" Zerg.
|
On January 14 2011 14:36 Galaxy77 wrote:
His thought process is incredibly one sided towards zerg, of course mineral expansions dont work if you're zerg!! Of course big open maps with a billion expos and a ten hour rush distance makes zerg absoloutely unbeatable. Its been proven time after time that in a straight up, no harass, no pressure game that zerg will completely DESTROY terran. Why would you want to encourage that?
He did say this: "I’m really concerned that they made them too large. Some of the GSL maps are a nice size, like SC1 maps, but other GSL maps are larger. I think the really large maps will create both uninteresting games as well as imbalance, because being aggressive can be too hard. Blizzard makes them too small, GSL maps are too large… maybe I’m just picky ^^."
I've always been impressed by how insightful Morrow is about this game, and the content of this interview only strengthens that conviction. Thanks for posting this, iGrok.
|
On January 14 2011 16:25 neppi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2011 14:36 Galaxy77 wrote:
His thought process is incredibly one sided towards zerg, of course mineral expansions dont work if you're zerg!! Of course big open maps with a billion expos and a ten hour rush distance makes zerg absoloutely unbeatable. Its been proven time after time that in a straight up, no harass, no pressure game that zerg will completely DESTROY terran. Why would you want to encourage that? Yeah I agree, it is a good interview but it sort of "favors" Zerg.
He didn't seem biased at all and said his opinion on map effects for all races.
It may seem like that because zerg actually depends on map most of all races.
|
On January 13 2011 20:32 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Morrow made 1 good point that most people will overlook, so I will restate its significance:
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible.
You cannot design 1 map that suits all the races. Races do not have the versatility that they had in BW.
Remember in BW how a large open area in TvP was death for terran, so T would use mines and hug a wall to turn the attack path into a narrow corridor? Another example: Zerg has a very narrow bridge to one 3rd, and a line of cliffs to another. He'll go for the cliff 3rd if he makes muta or the bridge 3rd if he opens lurker.
Zerg doesn't have a choice of openings in sc2. Terran doesn't have tools for blocking terrain movement. All chokes are protoss favored no matter what because of FF and storm/colossi. The lack of versatility of unit choice, because unit choice is more dependent on what your opponent makes than what you want to do with your expanding, kills map design.
What Morrow is suggesting is that we have separate maps for each MU, but that's ridiculous.
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
Wow. Having come from bw myself I absolutely agree with that.
Its like the way how blizzard designed the game, focusing on designing units, and not on races.
This led to massive buffing & nerfing. But point is that you cant change the way how a race works as whole by just increasing/decreasing some unit build time or stuff like that. The changes must be much more comprehensive.
Im hoping they improve the game on that issue in Heart of the Swarm .
|
On January 14 2011 14:36 Galaxy77 wrote:His thought process is incredibly one sided towards zerg, of course mineral expansions dont work if you're zerg!!
So, as you say.. A Mineral onyl woudl be next to useless for Zerg, thats 1/3 races.. And you don't see something wrong with that?
Of course big open maps with a billion expos and a ten hour rush distance makes zerg absoloutely unbeatable. Its been proven time after time that in a straight up, no harass, no...
Yeah, it's kinda like.. Steppes of War, DQ, Jungle.... For Terran against Zerg.
|
they should use the lava from the single player just to mix it up a little!
|
|
|
On January 14 2011 08:24 mmdmmd wrote:
I wonder what happen if someone ported all current BW maps to SC2. Will they work?
They would. But when you visit a map thread, most people there really have no idea what they are talking about. Just silly complaints. Most people are scared shitless of 'risky' maps, ie maps with wide entrances, dual entrances, back doors, etc.
Anyways, I think before we even begin to critique player maps, we need a GOD DAMN BETTER CUSTOM GAME SYSTEM SO THESE MAPS CAN GET SEEN AND PLAYED!!!!!!!!!!
|
Thanks for the nice and interesting interview!
|
Great interview!
As with anything in SC2 there's going to be some trial and error. I think Blizzard should try testing maps every few months to be included in the ladder. Any ladder player would have the option to turn off custom maps, so anyone afraid of imbalance would not have to participate but those players with custom maps checked could play on a map pool of regular Blizzard maps and custom maps as well. No map's going to be perfect for everyone and most of the strategies we see are centered around what map is being played. Also as a176 said the custom games system needs a complete overhaul.
|
Well MorroW definitely knows his shit.
Great discussion, very insightful. Thanks for putting this up.
|
u guys glacial spike is a big picture of sid the sloth from ice age covered in ice cuz he got frozen and theres a pac man ghost on his head
http://i.imgur.com/ETEMT.jpg
|
i'm sorry but glacial spike looks ridiculous PvZ, imagine trying throw down an expo even somewhat early, ling run by's are going to ruin your shit badly
|
What happened to the SC2 versions of HBR or Outsider? I loved those maps as they made for the most exciting games during the prime of my BW fandom.
|
|
|
very good interview. thanks for the time and input morrow
|
I agree with what phoenix said. Its really hard to balance maps because each race needs a specific type of choke sizer and etc to work at the optimal.
|
Love the serious thought process. Morrow has a lot of important points. I think he is not zerg partial at all actually. The thing is that zerg HAS to work in order for the whole game to work, and zerg has special needs for a third base. At the same time this base needs to be harassable, but possible to defend as P or T.
|
What the hell it is possible to make at least 4 player with same spawn positions like in SC1?
|
It seems the main reason zerg has no ability to use chokes is directly because of the lack of lurker. This makes me wonder how zerg's can use burrowed banelings to abuse chokes. Of course, that's FAR more limited than lurkers.
It makes me wonder what kind of massive changes will occur in the upcoming expansions.
I like Morrow's insight on the maps, and the difficulty of making something that's actually reasonably balanced.
|
Hit the nail right on the head. There is the inherit problem is no one is motivated enough to make a map no one will play. Yeah, there's MOTM, but there needs to be ways to motivate mappers AND players to play them. Ultimately, IMO the goal is to hopefully get the most popular and best maps on ladder. Otherwise, outside of tournaments these maps are destined for the custom games graveyard.
On January 14 2011 17:07 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2011 16:25 neppi wrote:On January 14 2011 14:36 Galaxy77 wrote:
His thought process is incredibly one sided towards zerg, of course mineral expansions dont work if you're zerg!! Of course big open maps with a billion expos and a ten hour rush distance makes zerg absoloutely unbeatable. Its been proven time after time that in a straight up, no harass, no pressure game that zerg will completely DESTROY terran. Why would you want to encourage that? Yeah I agree, it is a good interview but it sort of "favors" Zerg. He didn't seem biased at all and said his opinion on map effects for all races. It may seem like that because zerg actually depends on map most of all races.
Balance aside, it's important to get the BASICS right as Morrow mentioned. So sick of seeing these customs with all sorts of gimmicks to them and also way too much love for neutral expansions.
|
blizzard probably won't add new abilities/units (like mines/lurkers), because they have 2 expansions scheduled which is pretty sad, if they would add everything SC2 needs to be balanced there would be very little room for new expansions to bring something new.
btw [Eternal]Phoenix u hit the nail
|
On January 16 2011 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:
It seems the main reason zerg has no ability to use chokes is directly because of the lack of lurker. This makes me wonder how zerg's can use burrowed banelings to abuse chokes. Of course, that's FAR more limited than lurkers.
It makes me wonder what kind of massive changes will occur in the upcoming expansions.
I like Morrow's insight on the maps, and the difficulty of making something that's actually reasonably balanced.
I absolutely agree. I strongly miss lurkers (or an equivalent unit).
Plus, zerg as the only race has basically no possibility to block a ramp (to prevent scouting or general penetration by an enemy army) with buildings, a queen to block hellions normally isn't on time because the creep isn't spread to the choke until the scouting hellion arrives (plus reaction time) and for later preventing the enemy army from entering the base, the 175 HP simply aren't enough.
|
On January 13 2011 20:32 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Morrow made 1 good point that most people will overlook, so I will restate its significance:
Each race wants different terrain out of a map. Zerg needs massive open areas, terran wants tight chokes vs zerg but not protoss, protoss wants as many chokes as possible.
You cannot design 1 map that suits all the races. Races do not have the versatility that they had in BW.
Remember in BW how a large open area in TvP was death for terran, so T would use mines and hug a wall to turn the attack path into a narrow corridor? Another example: Zerg has a very narrow bridge to one 3rd, and a line of cliffs to another. He'll go for the cliff 3rd if he makes muta or the bridge 3rd if he opens lurker.
Zerg doesn't have a choice of openings in sc2. Terran doesn't have tools for blocking terrain movement. All chokes are protoss favored no matter what because of FF and storm/colossi. The lack of versatility of unit choice, because unit choice is more dependent on what your opponent makes than what you want to do with your expanding, kills map design.
What Morrow is suggesting is that we have separate maps for each MU, but that's ridiculous.
What a look at the true problems with maps indicates is not a problem that is exclusive to maps, but a reflection on race design and versatility, and consequentially balance. If this game cannot be balanced on a single map for all MUs, is it possible that it is not balanced as a game?
(Man i would have liked to cut a part of this quote to not blow up my post, but every sentence is just full of truth...)
Having played brood war way more than SC2, I feel the lack of versatility of the races poses a big problem for all map creation process. As he mentioned, every race wants - or rather needs - one special kind of terrain to be successful in a certain matchup. The reason behind this is that most of the players only feel confident with one single unit combination, and even if they mix that up, it still works the same.
Protoss getting some or no immortals at all, doesn't matter for the functioning of their army - they don't play without either Colossi or HTs, both having maximum efficiency in chokes due to their aoe.
Zerg needs surrounds, because that maximizes the efficiency of their melee units (zerglings, banelings, theoretically ultras), lets the short ranged roaches catch up to the enemy's longer ranged army and ultimately prevents them from being kited (by stalkers, marauders). In BW, mutalisks could have profited from marine/medic groups getting in a choke, unable to stim-chase the mutas, but I don't see the muta micro being an efficient counter (yea, hate on me, Day9 ) to mass marine balls anymore.
(Leaving out terran, cause I'm tired, and because I feel they might have the biggest versatility of the 3 races, and I even think we might see big only-air-mixes with banshees/vikings being viable in future)
As a consequence, a certain terrain disposition directly favors the one or the other race, other than in BW, where it usually forced a rethink of strategy from a race, a process of adaption rather than an immediate disadvantage.
I might be wrong about the situation being that severe, and maybe the game will develop and become more flexible, but that is in my eyes the status quo. Let's hope people with Morrow's insight will influence the evolution of this game.
|
On January 16 2011 16:41 Ownos wrote:Hit the nail right on the head. There is the inherit problem is no one is motivated enough to make a map no one will play. Yeah, there's MOTM, but there needs to be ways to motivate mappers AND players to play them. Ultimately, IMO the goal is to hopefully get the most popular and best maps on ladder. Otherwise, outside of tournaments these maps are destined for the custom games graveyard. Show nested quote +On January 14 2011 17:07 Alpina wrote:On January 14 2011 16:25 neppi wrote:On January 14 2011 14:36 Galaxy77 wrote:
His thought process is incredibly one sided towards zerg, of course mineral expansions dont work if you're zerg!! Of course big open maps with a billion expos and a ten hour rush distance makes zerg absoloutely unbeatable. Its been proven time after time that in a straight up, no harass, no pressure game that zerg will completely DESTROY terran. Why would you want to encourage that? Yeah I agree, it is a good interview but it sort of "favors" Zerg. He didn't seem biased at all and said his opinion on map effects for all races. It may seem like that because zerg actually depends on map most of all races. Balance aside, it's important to get the BASICS right as Morrow mentioned. So sick of seeing these customs with all sorts of gimmicks to them and also way too much love for neutral expansions.
Very true, but the custom game system will need alot of work. Right now there is no forum for finding melee maps at all, everything is just jumbled together, I would love to see the custom games system fixed first. Then maybe some of the popular maps under melee maps can become ladder maps for a few months. I think the maps are working their way up to the B.net Map Market, what that's gonna be is still a mystery, but they'll be releasing a pay service at some point you can bet on it.
|
On January 16 2011 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:
It seems the main reason zerg has no ability to use chokes is directly because of the lack of lurker. This makes me wonder how zerg's can use burrowed banelings to abuse chokes. Of course, that's FAR more limited than lurkers.
It makes me wonder what kind of massive changes will occur in the upcoming expansions.
I like Morrow's insight on the maps, and the difficulty of making something that's actually reasonably balanced.
I am not sure that lurkers would be as effective at that job as they were in BW for several reasons:
1) Armies are far more fluid and responsive, so even at the most basic level there is better control. This means that armies can avoid lurkers much easier.
2) No high ground advantage means that with detection, a good marine (for example) ark is really easy to form to kill the lurkers with minimal loss.
3) Units do not move in single file (related to issue #1).
4) No dark swarm means that they become a lot more useless in the late game.
New advantages:
1) No irradiate (hells yeah!)
Zerg do need something to defend chokes with for the game to be balanced. Unfortunately I don't think that lurkers can do the job well enough without some severe changes. Also they would be difficult to balance in team games - zerg player builds lurkers and protoss player forcefielding on top of them would make them insanely strong.
Besides, what zerg needs is the ability to change the terrain (like colossi, reapers, sentries etc...) and a better mineral dump than zerglings.
Really as zerg, unless you go roach/ling the entire game you are always gas limited. This means that gold minerals are less useful than for other races. Zealots and marines are far more useful in the late game than lings.
|
Well said morrow! I think he covered just about every qualm I had about the Blizz maps and the popular user created. I agree that Glacial Spike looks like we will get some great games. Mirage seems a bit choke-y in the middle, but thats probably the overmind talking.
on the "zerg needs lurker" thing I agree with the post above. I think they would be much worse in sc2, for some examples:
ZvT: Scans are almost always gonna be available, Drops are MUCH easier to mass, Ravens are arguably stronger than science vessels in killing them directly.
ZvP: stalkers would perform much much better against lurkers than dragoons, the reason is obvious BLINK. Along with the fact observers, immortals, and colo's all units that would absolutely own lukers are in the best tech path for them.
ZvZ: Nice lurkers! {researchs tunneling claws, drops a nydus in your main, techs muta, etc.}
its just that all races have ways of just busting or ignoring entrenched defensive positions that I think the lurker is nigh useless defensively.
Offensively however, banelings get our marine ownage check check'd, fuck buildings and workers up checked, and are easier and faster to get. Ill pass
|
I wouldn't bring back lurkers. Z needs a new unit, and one is early in the game. Personally, I'd love to see an alternative to banelings, that does +damage to armored units .
|
On January 16 2011 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:
It seems the main reason zerg has no ability to use chokes is directly because of the lack of lurker. This makes me wonder how zerg's can use burrowed banelings to abuse chokes. Of course, that's FAR more limited than lurkers.
It makes me wonder what kind of massive changes will occur in the upcoming expansions.
I like Morrow's insight on the maps, and the difficulty of making something that's actually reasonably balanced.
It's a new game.
Zergs are good in open terrain, whereas terran and protoss have an advantage in the matchup in choke points.
In PvT protoss (so far) has advantage in choke points, whereas terran wants open terrain to get his MM spread out. (With a meching terran it's a different story ofcourse.)
Just don't engage in choke points with siege tanks and collosi in them.
|
Should the map be adapting to the players or should the players be adapting to the map ?
The opinions expressed in this interview seem to opt for option 1. I tend to not agree, I think each map should bring a different playstyle.
Morrow point seems to be that every map should be favoring long macro play with long rush distances. I mean that is because it is his playstyle: Macro player that likes long games.
I personnally think there should be more variety of maps. I really liked Desert Oasis: everybody complained about it, but every game I played on this map was epic. People complaint because they don't want to spend the time adapting.
By the way, anyone knows when we are going to see any new ladder maps ?
|
TL got some nice interviews, keep it up
|
On January 17 2011 11:08 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:
It seems the main reason zerg has no ability to use chokes is directly because of the lack of lurker. This makes me wonder how zerg's can use burrowed banelings to abuse chokes. Of course, that's FAR more limited than lurkers.
It makes me wonder what kind of massive changes will occur in the upcoming expansions.
I like Morrow's insight on the maps, and the difficulty of making something that's actually reasonably balanced. I absolutely agree. I strongly miss lurkers (or an equivalent unit). Plus, zerg as the only race has basically no possibility to block a ramp (to prevent scouting or general penetration by an enemy army) with buildings, a queen to block hellions normally isn't on time because the creep isn't spread to the choke until the scouting hellion arrives (plus reaction time) and for later preventing the enemy army from entering the base, the 175 HP simply aren't enough.
Zerg players should seriously stop whining about being unable to block with buildings. It's been that way since BW. If you're complaining about not being able to block with buildings, you're playing the wrong race.
|
I liked Morrow's idea about having maps for certain matchups. I'm protoss, and personally hate wide open maps...think they are so boring but understand (sort of) the need to open up things a little for zerg who as a numbers race need a lot of surface area. Think it would be great to have a closed style ladder map for PvP, PvT but not for PvZ and PvRandom. Terrain have dropships and siege tanks to tank advantage of cramped corridors while toss has forcefields, storm and colossi so I think balance wouldn't be a big deal.
The big thing to consider when making maps is to ask if the races are rush balanced, macro balanced and mid-game balanced. Just think that SC2 unlike SC1 is not 'time balanced' in that the longer the game goes on the more skewed the balance gets. Long games favor zerg because of creep, overall unit speed (especially the muta), and production capacity is so cheap that units are easily massed. Protoss are IMO the best rush race but the weakest macro race because of the cost of their units, slow unit speed, production capacity and lack of mules/queens (CB is way overrated). So toss have maybe a nice window in the 6-9 minute range and brief window later when they have colossi but the opponent doesn't have AA yet...but as soon as the opponent gets AA, toss'es macro can't keep up with terran and zerg. Toss in late game has to scramble for AOE because basic economics of the races says they will get outgunned straight up with no AOE units on either side. If we have large maps we have to nerf muta speed, queen cost (inject larvae is too OP in late game) and do something perhaps about dropship and banshee speed as well else protoss will get trounced.
All in all, I do think the big problem is race balance as opposed to map balance. A lot of zergs feel they have to play macro or bust Idra style which is sooo boring. Would much rather see a buffed zerg early game and nerfed zerg late game so we don't see mindless overdroning, oodles of expansions and creep everywhere and the zerg simple a-moving their super macro army to victory. A nice solution also might be to nerf rauders so zerg can go roaches vs terrain as opposed to muta/ling/bling (which is getting so old) and for the colossi range to be nerfed which would open up options as well.
|
On January 21 2011 02:04 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:
It seems the main reason zerg has no ability to use chokes is directly because of the lack of lurker. This makes me wonder how zerg's can use burrowed banelings to abuse chokes. Of course, that's FAR more limited than lurkers.
It makes me wonder what kind of massive changes will occur in the upcoming expansions.
I like Morrow's insight on the maps, and the difficulty of making something that's actually reasonably balanced. It's a new game. Zergs are good in open terrain, whereas terran and protoss have an advantage in the matchup in choke points. In PvT protoss (so far) has advantage in choke points, whereas terran wants open terrain to get his MM spread out. (With a meching terran it's a different story ofcourse.) Just don't engage in choke points with siege tanks and collosi in them.
Which leads us back to the map creation problem Morrow was talking about if zerg can't do much with enclosed spaces and protoss/terran can't do well in open spaces?
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree that it seems to depend so much on the match up. While large maps could potentially lead to interesting macro games with a lot of harassment, it may also favor a style of game play too much. Zerg may always get out of control with macro, or strong timing pushes may always seem to be the only option. I'm no expert though. D:
|
its actually quite the designe fail that the 3 races need different maps to play there way. This brings "mapluck" into the game and yeah .... Zerg just needs a unit or more which can controll or take advantage of the map. Zerg doesnt have forcefiels to block chokes or divide armys into 2 parts.... they dont have reapers, collosi or tanks to abuse cliffs. Thats one problem of this race besides that we are a race of "mass" and need good surrounds. Zergs need a longrange unit (like tanks) and a unit who can cliffjump or can jump/ignore units so that this zergunit cant be blocked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KydtW.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/CtPM0.jpg)
