|
The topic is simple:
Why are good aspects of a map good, and why are the bad aspects of a map bad?
What constitutes a competitive map? Is it enough that it's well balanced, or does it require something more?
The answers is obviously much more complex and will differ depending on the person, race/match-up, strategy, etc. What I'm aiming for, specifically, is to see what people think about when it comes to balancing a map, and why certain maps are good and why certain maps are bad.
I really would like to see more specific ideas (for instance, Map X has too little/much high ground) generalized into something that can be applied into contexts. For instance, if a map has too much high ground, why? How much is too much? How much is too little?
If you don't want to go way deep into general map analysis, just post your favorite map, and why. Please be as specific as possible.
The idea of this thread isn't supposed to be to discuss specific maps and their balance; rather it is to focus on the key aspects of all maps, in general, and to pinpoint what aspects constitute imbalance or favoritism.
Also, if you were to make your perfect map, what would it look like? How does one make the perfectly balanced map?
It would also be really helpful to think about how a map that clearly favors each race would look. Would a terran-favored map have lots of high ground? Would Protoss-favored maps have lots of choke points? Or do choke points favor terran? These are just questions to hopefully get you thinking of your own.
So please post on any or all of the above! I'm willing to bet that a lot of people will have a lot of different views on what makes a map balanced! Looking forward to the replies 
|
Could you reword the question to: What are good and bad aspects of competitive maps?
(I'll edit when I collect my thoughts on the discussion trying to wakeup :D)
|
imo i don't care about balance. what makes a good map for me is its looks. if it looks like bad it's a bad map. if it looks good it is a good map
|
On June 20 2010 06:45 Merikh wrote:
Could you reword the question to: What are good and bad aspects of competitive maps?
I don't think I understand what you mean by "of competitive maps." Do you mean that I should be asking the question that would get people to list a map and its good and bad aspects, or that the focus in general should be purely on maps that would qualify for higher level competition?
The emphasis I'm trying to make is on the individual parts that make a map good or bad (or balanced or imbalanced), so if you mean the former, then that would certainly be one way of stating examples of good/bad things on a map, but if you mean the latter, then what qualifies a map as "competitive?" Wouldn't that simply be balance?
So I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I'll definitely at least be adding the question, "What constitutes a competitive map?"
|
I think the biggest issues with map balance atm is that most maps don't have an easy to take natural outside the main that has 1 main choke. That and sometimes back entrances in main bases depending on map layout can be quite problematic. On the other hand if used properly they can be very cool (think HBR and Medusa).
|
one of the main things missing from all of the current ladder maps is a defensible nat. Almost all competitive maps have very secure nats, and some even have very secure thirds. Right now the only map with an easily defensible nat is LT, which still has a relatively wide choke.
It's a balancing act though, because this can favor zerg pretty heavily.
EDIT: Too slow 
|
My definition of a good map:
A map that makes many different types of game play strategies viable for all races while having none that are at an unbalanced advantage.
My definition of a bad map:
A map that is highly favourable to a single type of strategy which may only be executed properly by one of the races.
I am basing the "goodness" of a map on how likely exciting game play is to take place on the map, and how likely that map is to become boring after many games on it.
|
In my opinion, each races benefit from a certain landscape:
Zerg: close expansions, wide areas for surrounds, and places for creep highway
For zerg, they need to move around a lot. Close bases allow creep to be extended between, making the units more mobile. Small chokes make large zerg armies useless, because they all have relatively low range: they need to surround an army to be fully effective.
Terran: small chokes, high ground, and as fewest flank paths as possible
Terran units overall have relatively long range. When a ball of mech or infantry attacks, they don't need to surround to all attack. Small chokes and high ground favors Terran tanks because they rip low hp units up before the unit can even attack the tank, because of the siege tank range.
Protoss: somewhere in between, very versatile
In my opinion, Protoss is the most maneuverable race of the three. Considering Zealot charge, Stalker blink, and ranged units, and colossi, the Protoss units can navigate through open spaces, high ground, and chokes. Also, bases don't need to be close (or far) because of warp-gates.
This is just my opinion, probably some pro will smash it .
|
On June 20 2010 06:54 Equalizer wrote:
My definition of a good map:
A map that makes many different types of game play strategies viable for all races while having none that are at an unbalanced advantage.
My definition of a bad map:
A map that is highly favourable to a single type of strategy which may only be executed properly by one of the races.
I am basing the "goodness" of a map on how likely exciting game play is to take place on the map, and how likely that map is to become boring after many games on it.
That's certainly more than fair. But what parts of a map make for diversity in strategy? For instance, high ground across all the main pushing lanes seems terran mech favored. A few well-placed Siege Tanks could slaughter whole armies. That probably makes for play that isn't very diverse. What maps do you consider to allow for diversity of play, and why do you think they do?
On June 20 2010 06:54 monitor wrote:In my opinion, each races benefit from a certain landscape: Zerg: close expansions, wide areas for surrounds, and places for creep highway For zerg, they need to move around a lot. Close bases allow creep to be extended between, making the units more mobile. Small chokes make large zerg armies useless, because they all have relatively low range: they need to surround an army to be fully effective. Terran: small chokes, high ground, and as fewest flank paths as possible Terran units overall have relatively long range. When a ball of mech or infantry attacks, they don't need to surround to all attack. Small chokes and high ground favors Terran tanks because they rip low hp units up before the unit can even attack the tank, because of the siege tank range. Protoss: somewhere in between, very versatile In my opinion, Protoss is the most maneuverable race of the three. Considering Zealot charge, Stalker blink, and ranged units, and colossi, the Protoss units can navigate through open spaces, high ground, and chokes. Also, bases don't need to be close (or far) because of warp-gates. This is just my opinion, probably some pro will smash it .
Does this mean that you think making a perfectly balanced map is nearly impossible and that the only solution is to have best of five rounds, where the loser picks the map? Or can you conceive of a map that properly balances these aspects to create a sufficiently balanced map?
|
On June 20 2010 06:54 monitor wrote:In my opinion, each races benefit from a certain landscape: + Show Spoiler +Zerg: close expansions, wide areas for surrounds, and places for creep highway For zerg, they need to move around a lot. Close bases allow creep to be extended between, making the units more mobile. Small chokes make large zerg armies useless, because they all have relatively low range: they need to surround an army to be fully effective. Terran: small chokes, high ground, and as fewest flank paths as possible Terran units overall have relatively long range. When a ball of mech or infantry attacks, they don't need to surround to all attack. Small chokes and high ground favors Terran tanks because they rip low hp units up before the unit can even attack the tank, because of the siege tank range. Protoss: somewhere in between, very versatile In my opinion, Protoss is the most maneuverable race of the three. Considering Zealot charge, Stalker blink, and ranged units, and colossi, the Protoss units can navigate through open spaces, high ground, and chokes. Also, bases don't need to be close (or far) because of warp-gates. This is just my opinion, probably some pro will smash it .
I agree. Picture two maps played TvZ:
Map one: two single bases (no nats) with a narrow path connecting them, with no alternate routes and a narrow choke in the middle. Z doesn't have a chance.
Map two: Each base has three nats that all share one choke, with no droppable cliffs. otherwise the entire map is completely open with no barriers other than surrounding the bases. T doesn't have a chance.
I'd like to make a couple maps like those described just to play around and be sure, but I imagine that's pretty accurate
|
I think a good map is a map that is totally flat with no cliffs, no chokes, only one type of terrain, no gas, no expansion, where there is only one race and one unit enabled.
|
The most popular "professional" maps
have:
A relatively easy to defend nat.
A bit harder third (differs from impossible to free with nat basically, usually in the middle though.)
Somewhat open middle that still has enough features to create "some" benefitial positions (must be possible to sidestep, unless the defender has more than one of these positions), this varies from completely open to a very jagged landscape.
A possibility for a 4th and 5th (in other mains on 3-4 player maps or just spread out on 2 player ones)
|
I've made a few threads looking for map feedback (collected the maps in one big thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=131662 ) and what people seem to focus on in general are:
1. Rush distance.
Is it too long (desert oasis)? too short (incineration zone)? I've tried to put my main to main rush time to 32 seconds for a probe on my maps. If thats too long or not I'm not sure but it seems to be pretty ok.
2. Natural expansion and what surrounds it.
Is it wide open like Desert Oasis or tucked away like blistering sands?
3. Space to move
Most of my maps tend to have rather wide attack paths. I guess that some players might prefer cramped maps like Kulas Ravine or Incineration Zone but thats not a style of play that I enjoy playing or watching. If anything I think that thin attack paths promote gimmicky play and that it skews the win% in favor of some races.
|
can player made maps be played on Bnet in rated games? can they be made into blizzards actual map pool??
|
On June 20 2010 07:16 Challe wrote:
can player made maps be played on Bnet in rated games? can they be made into blizzards actual map pool??
yes.
|
oh sweet I am going to make some maps and get them in the map pool
|
Probably a good place to start looking for map ideas is from SC:BW map ports.
While SC2 is new game many of the same concepts still apply.
Personally I find some of the matchpoint map ports fairly good but I am not pro so my opinion doesn't carry much weight.
|
Blizzard is very picky about what goes in... I would try to make it for competitive play and get it into a tournament. You have to be amazing at making maps - don't focus on aesthetics, focus on map balance.
Good luck Challe
EDIT: Btw, I think most SC:BW maps should not be remade because of the new mechanics such as reaper and colossi. Not to mention air dominance and gas needs.
|
On June 20 2010 06:46 Challe wrote:
imo i don't care about balance. what makes a good map for me is its looks. if it looks like bad it's a bad map. if it looks good it is a good map
Why are you here?
|
On June 20 2010 07:24 Challe wrote:
oh sweet I am going to make some maps and get them in the map pool
only awesome maps that are played alot gets added to the map pool
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
