EPTYou need a combination of terrain that allows zerg to flank, without leaving terran or protoss wide open. The natural expansion should be relatively easy to secure (fast expanding is possible). There shouldn't be too much cliff harassment opportunity, but some makes things interesting. You want a rush distance that doesn't heavily favor strategies such as 8pool, 2gate or marauder/reaper rushing, but still makes them a possibility. Additionally, the map should have various locations in which the terrain holds some kind of strategic advantage. i.e. have some open areas, some choked areas, some areas where high ground is key etc.
[D] Maps: Why is good good, and why is bad bad? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
You need a combination of terrain that allows zerg to flank, without leaving terran or protoss wide open. The natural expansion should be relatively easy to secure (fast expanding is possible). There shouldn't be too much cliff harassment opportunity, but some makes things interesting. You want a rush distance that doesn't heavily favor strategies such as 8pool, 2gate or marauder/reaper rushing, but still makes them a possibility. Additionally, the map should have various locations in which the terrain holds some kind of strategic advantage. i.e. have some open areas, some choked areas, some areas where high ground is key etc. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
Maps encourage you to diversify your play more than most people might think. Imagine playing a completely flat map. 1000 times. If this were Brood War, the exact same battle would play out with the same army composition every time. Multiple kinds of maps encourage multiple kinds of play, which I think is better than if we only had generically standard Lost Temples to play. Besides, you don't have to play a map you don't like, just play a different one. Different maps help keep the matchups more dynamic. The terrain helps keep you from just making a generic blob that smushes your opponent the same way every time. The possibilities of back doors, or middle-ground chokes, or whatever helps make the game more interesting. The natural terrain shapes how the battle plays out far more than your units and your micro does. My favorite is Kulas Ravine. just because it's technically small area but you can open up many more avenues, letting you reshape the battlefield yourself to suit your forces better. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Even very minor things, like 1-2 tile difference in ramp position can have a pretty big affect on how the map plays out. For example a ramp in one location may allow a Zerg to use buildings to choke their ramp from the bottom and defend their natural. Move the ramp 1-2 tiles away and maybe the crawlers are no longer defending the natural or the creep doesn't extend far enough. So really just play around. You have the ability to throw down any unit(s) you want since you're already in the map editor. Spawn common armies and see where they get clogged up and where they have enough room to arc out, build 'prototype bases', place siege tanks everywhere. Just try to use & exploit the map as if you were a player. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
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 Are you serious? | ||
|
junemermaid
United States981 Posts
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. This is a good definition. For a bad map example, see The Gauntlet for SC:BW. It encouraged zerg mutalisk rushes and there isn't much Protoss can do to stop the zerg from rushing to mutalisks due to the horrendously long travel distance. | ||
|
Challe
Afghanistan58 Posts
| ||
|
SiNiquity
United States734 Posts
On June 20 2010 08:46 Challe wrote: i think to make a good balanced map you need to make it as simple as possible. I think a good idea is to make a map with only minerals. no gas = less units = more balance and competitive play Such insight... As to the original topic, I'm a fan of trying new things, and must admit I'm a bit disappointed in how close-minded some are. Ex: someone's map was posted a few days ago, really neat looking, but several players were like "yeah islands suck, get rid of those." And he did.  Is it better now? Maybe. I don't know. But I'd rather have some maps with islands and some without than a bunch of the same maps with different tilesets. | ||
|
NaturalHacks
New Zealand77 Posts
distance between bases is critical looking a little further into this, if we take a metalopolis for example PvT, why does player A spawning in position X have an advantage? the zerg has the advantage in "far positions" and the protoss has the advantage in "close postions" because in far positions zerg can get a fast expansion relatively easily which they love to do, also because of zergling/mutalisk mobility the protoss player will find it difficult to expand, and just the opposite in terms of close positions, zerg finds it harder to fast expand because protoss can run early zealot pressure to zerg very early and break zergs economy early on or deny fast expansions, wide natural chokes delay expansions when versing zerg, tight chokes favor protoss mainly and somewhat terran wide chokes favor zerg high ground above bases generally favors terran back doors generally favor zerg long base distances generally work against terran close base distances generally work against protoss un-rocked close high yields can favor terran I tried to make my map (equilibrium) as balanced as possible in starcraft 2 stratergies not by regurgitating the old legends of starcraft 1 | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On June 20 2010 08:46 Challe wrote: i think to make a good balanced map you need to make it as simple as possible. I think a good idea is to make a map with only minerals. no gas = less units = more balance and competitive play banhammer please. such an obvious troll, not only in this post. I bet if one of you admins on this site look up his IP adress, he's nowhere near afghanistan. | ||
| ||
