|
16904 Posts
Hey, just wanted to discuss some theoretical map ideas for use of melee maps that I don't believe I've seen before (and may add a fun/interesting element to the game). Oh, and spark some debate in these otherwise discussionless forums.
Island/semi-island maps?
Has anyone experimented with island/semi-island maps yet? Island maps are maps such as the old Dire Straights, where all terrain is separated by water; the map is literally just islands of terrain on otherwise impassable sea/gorges/etc. A semi-island map would be a map where players start out on an island, but the rest of the map is normal. Once players expand down to the mainland, it would play normally.
Semi-island maps can be further defined to standard semi-islands, where players start on an actual island, and "special" (can't think of a term, sorry) semi-island maps where players start in a main that is completely blocked by destructible rocks, or perhaps a slight mineral barrier that must be mined through before allowing access. Some special semi-island maps could contain ramps that allow only workers and small units to pass through, but not larger units. This would make blind teching riskier, as you always risk dying to a baneling bust or something.
Anyone have any thoughts on how play would progress? For example, on pure island maps, would Terran players be too powerful in that they can just lift Command Centers and expand much faster (and perhaps secure with a pfort/turrets)? How would air superiority work in a pure island map/which race has better air superiority? And what about semi-island maps?
Are there any other potential variants of special semi-island maps that you can think of that might add an interesting dynamic to the game?
Varying resource counts/dynamics
For these sets of changes, I'm talking about changes such as expansion count or number of resources available at each expansion/entire map/main. For example, a map may have no gas at the nat, or only one geyser at each base (with two geysers at a gold base). Or, a map may start off with gold resources at the main and fewer expansions.
Map dynamics that I think would be changed are effectiveness of harass, timing of attacks and expanding, and even unit composition (if number of resources are changed). A map which starts with gold resources may favor players whose style it is to build up a larger force of units and move out at a certain cue (such as 2-1 upgrades or something). A map that has only one geyser at the main/nat may see more a heavier Marine/Hellion composition, or favor more Zealot/Stalkers and fewer Sentries. Do you think any race would benefit if certain resources were in relatively greater/lesser quantities?
Again, any ideas/thoughts on how play might progress on these types of maps? How viable do you think changing the resource dynamics would be in terms of legitimacy? Do you think any races in particular would benefit from dynamics such as these (for example, on a low resource/low expansion map, do you think Terran's ease of defense would give them an advantage)?
A little aside/history lesson from BW for all the new players out there: until 2003-2004ish, all maps had 8 mineral patches at the main. A new map, Luna, came out with 9 minerals in the main, as well as a nat that was less vulnerable to harass (due to it being uncliffable). As such, play shifted toward a more macro-oriented style of play (for example, nada/oov/reach/etc.). 9 minerals in the main quickly became the standard.
Quirky terrain features
Here I'm talking about concepts such as having a low-ground main, having a cliffable main, making all paths very narrow, etc. Can you guys think of other such quirky terrain features, and how do you think play would progress on those maps? What if neutral units were introduced (for example, would if there were neutral creep tumors on certain areas the map so Zerg players would have an automatic movement (but not sight) advantage in certain regions? How about neutral Sieged Tanks on cliffs so Zerg players could Neural Parasite them in a critical location?
EDIT: This is also officially the oldest discussion thread in the new SC2 forums  (the perfect symmetry thread is technically older, but we didn't have a dedicated map forum then!)
Also going to sleep T_T...have to be at my cubicle in six hours. I'll check on this thread then!
|
Island Maps:
- You could use a small army (or just any amount) of hostile neutrals to block off significant portions of the map :D I personally dont see anything wrong with this if you give them a really good reason to use forces doing it. It would mean less and less as the game goes on too.
- I'm sure there are other clever ways to block off portions of a map that you didn't mention. I'm sure I'll think of some I'll put em here if I don't put em in a map I make first :D
- There are many many ways to do island maps including having a natural and even a third connected to your main with cleverly placed gold expansions, close spawns, far spawns, 2v2-ish spawns, etc etc. You could do many combinations with those features alone.
- Give gold expansions in the middle to give them reason to take over it, or just a lot of area in general for ground forces to work with (works better with less bases attached to main).
- I am also worried that island maps could favor Terran too much. I guess it could be avoided if you split up their first expansions enough. Maybe make close ones blocked by rocks.
Varying resources:
- Always keep in mind that gold resources mine out faster
- I think mapmakers should understand why it could help to tweak each bases mineral's the way you want them. If you want early expanding, give them a solid 8 minerals at their expansion and dont make any of them "far". If you want to discourage expanding to an area, delete a mineral field or something. Maybe give them an easily defendable mineral-only expansion or something. I think mixing blue and gold minerals has a lot of potential when combined with these things.
- As people have pointed out, Terran MULE's mine gold very fast, and this can kind of be imbalanced for them if it's too easy for them.
- I like the possibility of having like 10 mineral fields in your main to start with, but 3 of them only have 500 on them, or something like that.
- If you spread out the minerals it can make them easier to harass by air because it's harder to place photons/turrets/spores. However, spreading out the minerals also nerfs hellion harrass, and possibly even ling harass.
- There is certainly a lot of potential with high yield gas as well. I believe it will be more common as time goes on.
A new map, Luna, came out with 9 minerals in the main, as well as a nat that was less vulnerable to harass (due to it being uncliffable). As such, play shifted toward a more macro-oriented style of play (for example, nada/oov/reach/etc.). 9 minerals in the main quickly became the standard. this pretty much sums up the way it is.
Quirky Terrain Features:
Oh man this is like my #1 thing lol I am gonna update this later watchin day9 countdown >.<
original post:
first, reserved :D
oh man I have so much to put here but its too late now I will work on it tomorrow while waiting for midnight with bloodshot eyes.
User was warned for this post
aw sry 
|
Quirky map features? How about different Terrain levels. All of our maps are usually 2 or 3 levels. High, regular, and low. Some are even just high and low. If possible, I would like to see maybe 6 or 7 levels of terrain, where one player starts at the bottom and one at the top. Sure the one at the top has more vision, but the bottom player has say, quicker access to expansions, or more space to work with.
|
its not possible with the current map editor. what you can do is:
low ground - normal ground - high ground - very high ground
thats all there is. and low ground is unpathable.
|
What i'm looking to see is the dynamic terrain, the one thing i remember from early crap i saw on sc2 was this one mission level with rising lava that would cover the gold mins for a moment, i think something like that can be really interesting to the pro scene.
|
Island maps
I would love to see more island maps. I think they would really put most people out of their comfort-zone and force them to play innovative and creative. I don't know if we'll see any official blizzard maps which are island maps as they are pretty much requiring their own balancing - and since none appeared in the beta, I don't think they will after release either. Concerning balance, then there is a lot of new mechanics in SC2 which could provide lots of interesting play on island maps:
Terran
Can obviously lift off buildings. Not only for grabbing fast expands, but also for fast rushes by flying barracks and/or factories into the main of the other players. Remember that flying buildings move a LOT faster in sc2 than they ever did in sc1.
Zerg
A nydus rush would probably be the standard opening, and can probably be timed to appear quite early. You only need 400 gas for a operating nydus worm (100 lair, 200 network, 100 worm) and this can be used for expanding or again, for rushing. I also believe that a nydus-worm is preferable to the alternative which is overlord drops. Also zerg will have the dominant scouting advantage as no race are able to scout with their workers, and overlords/scans are the only early-game scout options (maybe P will start favouring hallucination-tech for the scouting hallucinated phoenix?)
Protoss
Will probably have the hardest time expanding of all the three races, but will in turn have one of the safest rush-options. Given that the lakes, seperating the islands are small enoug, you can create pylons which reach across the gaps making it possible to warp in units on a neighbouring island.
2v2
I think one of the most exciting news in SC2 is that they are balancing the game towards 2v2-play as well. This is a gameplay that was more or less non-existent in the BW community. 2v2 island maps can create fantastic new options to map design. I have already seen a couple of threads in this very forum on maps that are based on separate islands, where one player on opposing sides are sharing an island. Early-game will then be two parallel 1v1's until some player gets to air-tech and can help out their ally. Fast-teching is a dangerous strategy as the opponent sharing island with you can simply rush you.
Varying resource counts/dynamics
I would very much like to see more variations on the number of resources available on different maps. Especially swapping normal mineral patches for gold mineral patches in your main would probably have a huge impact on gameplay. Actually I think this will encourage more rush-games, rather than macroplay. The reason for this is that gold minerals doesn't really give you more money, but it gives you faster money. This means number one that you will have too little gas to effectively tech up meaning a lot more tier 1-units and early game agression. Secondly it means that you will mine out your main much quicker and turtleing too hard might be a very bad idea.
I hope that there are a lot of quirky maps coming out after the release that is exploring every possible aspect of this game. I like maps which force players to rethink their old strategies and improvise. What should you do when suddenly your familiar gas/mineral ratio gets screwed up due to gold minerals or the number of geysiers. What should you do when your tanks are too fat to get out of your main and you are forced to go early game marines. What will you do when your old strategies stop working and you are faced with a new unfamiliar situation.
Now, I'm not completely ignorant, and I really expect there to be developed some really cheesy rush on most of these maps pretty soon. And moreover blizzard can't fix it with balance-changes since it will break other MUs and the chesse only works on that particular map. But untill that strategy has been developed, I think that it could be loads of fun playing such maps.
|
On July 26 2010 17:17 semantics wrote:
What i'm looking to see is the dynamic terrain, the one thing i remember from early crap i saw on sc2 was this one mission level with rising lava that would cover the gold mins for a moment, i think something like that can be really interesting to the pro scene.
A few maps have the lava generation. You just have to look hard enough to find them.
|
On July 26 2010 17:32 Genesis128 wrote:
[...]
2v2
I think one of the most exciting news in SC2 is that they are balancing the game towards 2v2-play as well. This is a gameplay that was more or less non-existent in the BW community.
..wait what? 2v2 non existend? Up untill a year ago there was 2v2 in proleague and as far as I know many foreigner clan leagues played 2v2's in their clan wars, and 2v2 is still very much played on ladders like iccup.
|
|
|
I'm working on a concept where the map transforms from a semi-island to a more macro-focused one. I'm still just doing the drawing for it since its a pretty complicated concept.
Think of it like the map starting out as Incineration Zone or Steppes of War to allow for very aggressive play in the beginning and then over a period of 25-30 minutes transforming into more of a Metalopolis style map where macro is key. I'd like to have atleast three "phases" with each phase opening up the map more and more. Would have started on it earlier but my editor was bugged in phase 1, a bug that made it impossible to create what I want to do. In phase 2 I felt like there was no point in starting since we'd get tons of new art on release and I wouldnt be done in time anyway. Hoping to have it out in the next few weeks.
|
I was wondering what you guys would say to a map that had warp gates that could teleport ground unit instantly from one place to another. It wouldn't be possible on a "melee" map since you would need to make triggers to do it, but I'm thinking a map that is melee except for the warp gate.
You could do some really different stuff with it such as
-Only entrance to base is a warp gate
-Warp gates behind destructible rocks from main to main allowing for long rush distance, then mid-game very short ground distance base to base
I know a lot of people are gonna say "this isnt WC3" and they do have a point, but WC3 introduced a lot of interesting map features that I think could be a interesting addition to SC
|
What about a lava based map where a stream of lava is inbetween the main and natural expansion, however, it's not a total block off, you can run through it, but it will damage your units depending how long they are in the stream of lava. (about 30% of the units health per 4 seconds or something like that)
|
I think MorroW has brought up a very interesting concept in his map ''Torrasque'' with neutral creep tumors ( as mentioned in OP) along with a Hostile Ultralisk blocking off the high yield instead of rocks. This seems to bring a new dynamic of choice instead of just killing the rocks when both of you are macroing up with very little risk. Going to kill the Ultra not only makes you risk losing some units and getting a numeric disadvantage but it brings the possibility of ''creep jacking'' wc3 style where the other player could ambush you while you kill the ultra for great effect.
|
One thing that could be done to add a different element in play is to highlight the area that a watch tower provides vision. This could be done with doodads or terrain.
It would essentially be using watchtowers having the same range markers that sensor towers have
although they wont be quite as obvious as a white line.
|
what i'm waiting for is high ground that you can travel under, like a bridge or a tunnel. just imagine the blocks in lot temple in the middle being connected, but units could also walk underneath the walkways. i think this could create very interesting ideas, such as ramps up to a choke or stealthily moving your army
|
16904 Posts
On July 27 2010 08:09 ScytheMan01 wrote:
what i'm waiting for is high ground that you can travel under, like a bridge or a tunnel. just imagine the blocks in lot temple in the middle being connected, but units could also walk underneath the walkways. i think this could create very interesting ideas, such as ramps up to a choke or stealthily moving your army
This would be pretty cool, but what happens if two people try to use the tunnels at once? No possibility for micro
|
I've heard making real tunnel type terrain was impossible with the sc2 engine. Could be wrong though.
|
Reposting old ideas I've posted before...the environment surrounding the ideas may have changed, but some might still be salvaged for maps.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=85899
On January 12 2009 10:19 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Existing macro mechanic proposals almost always lie in adding features to units and buildings and that is quite limited because it works the same way on every map and adds relatively little to strategy, and balance patches effect all of them at once and map makers can't tweak the importance of macro like, say, the effectiveness of mutalisk harass. In addition, more features added units are hard to read like how it is hard to check factory efficiency and no one ever saw a pimpest factory usage play in a vod.
Here is my proposal to macro that is map dependent. It requires no new game concepts, only extension to the normal-gold mineral concept.
The solution only includes adding more Mineral types. For example:
1. Brown minerals returns 2 minerals a cycle
2. Blue mineral returns 6 minerals a cycle
3. Gold mineral return 10 minerals a cycle
4. Red mineral return 15+ minerals a cycle (for remote mining)
With these mineral patches, we can create all sort of thing to promote all kinds of macro we want. Here are some examples:
1. Make manual mine work better than automine:
Automine is stupid and does not differentiate mineral patches. If you mix gold minerals and brown minerals in a patch, automine would often mine brown minerals first. A macro-ing player can manually move peons to mine gold minerals and reassign rally points after every peon to improve efficiency.
The effectiveness of this mechanic can be tweaked by different mixture of different mineral types.
2. Mining timing:
Minerals can be used to block other minerals to create timings in mining. For example, you can have three brown mineral patches (at 100 minerals each) blocking the path to 6 blue minerals at a expo. This way, you have to start with 6~9 peons at the expo to mine out the blocking patches first, before timing to move from the main to mine the blue.
By having many layers of minerals blocking each other, a complex timing can be made into the map. For example, you may start out with 2 patches, than unblocked to reveal 6 patches, finally end with 3 high patches with 3k minerals each. This would mean the player would need to vary his peon count over the game for the expo, all of which can be planned by the map maker to create timings and more strategy. One interesting way is to have timings to move workers from the main, expo and third every two three minutes in response to number of available minerals and their type.
To make minerals block each other well, some sort of semi-stacked mineral patches might be a good idea to keep the peon travel distance more even.
3. Long distance mining
Existing SC maps are dependent on highly concentrated mineral patches around a nature base placement location. With super high yield minerals, it is possible to put minerals far from possible bases and have mining work more like C&C type harvesters. This can result in even more complicated mining timing (eg. grab the red minerals in the open before enemy's breaks the front contain) It would also require manual mining, as a 120 mineral patch would run out before many rallies can be done, and dumb mining far from the base as just asking for peons to be sniped. If we really give super high yield patches, say 50 a carry with 200 total, mineral steal might be a valid strategy.
---------
Why this is great:
It is a intuitive, easily balanced, strategic, and highly visible macro mechanics.
The peon movement of skilled players would show a lot of strategy in balancing income flow and risk. One can build timings not only out of the macro and resource flow, but also weaknesses peon movements, like a timing drop on the nat when you know the opponent is trying to take advantage of unrevealed gold minerals at 8:20 seconds.
With complex mineral distribution, one can also balance gas/mineral at different phases of the game for even more strategy and fix broken race balances and so on.
N00bs can just play maps with one line of simple blue minerals everywhere.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=123031
Many SC2 players are wishing for a return of the high ground advantage. Well, with a new engine, new defender's advantages is possible and perhaps it is possible to replace the 30% miss rate advantage.
Worst map since DMZ: will a new engine save it?
After some thought, micro-terrain features or simply, "large numbers of small patches of impassible terrain" is a potentially powerful addition to SC2 map making. Dense, small map features isn't just a choke point, it is far more powerful while still work as area terrain that allows unit movement in multiple directions. The possible uses are as follows:
1. Reducing the density of shooting armies by reducing the available surface area, thus resulting in a defender's advantage when attacking from occupied terrain into clean terrain.
2. Modifying movement speeds, differently for different units at different movement angles if needed.
3. Possibility for breaking the pathfinding algorithm to make micro a more efficient way of moving units, or just plain dense terrain that needs micro to get the most out of units.
4. Potential use to "block" placement of forcefields, bunkers and such without effecting other units too much.
Now, such a thing was possible in SC1 as well, but could not be used because units tend to get bugged when the pathfinding algorithm deals with large piece of broken terrain. "Dragoon stacking contest" just isn't very much fun. SC2's better pathfinding makes this a better managed issue.
-------
Of course, most of this is theory and much research on the density, pattern, size of impassible terrain elements on area terrain and how it effects pathing and other things. It is more experiments in fluid dynamics than anything, but it'd be interesting and there is no telling what we'd discover at the moment.
|
On July 26 2010 19:59 Navane wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 17:32 Genesis128 wrote:
[...]
2v2
I think one of the most exciting news in SC2 is that they are balancing the game towards 2v2-play as well. This is a gameplay that was more or less non-existent in the BW community.
..wait what? 2v2 non existend? Up untill a year ago there was 2v2 in proleague and as far as I know many foreigner clan leagues played 2v2's in their clan wars, and 2v2 is still very much played on ladders like iccup.
2v2 has been gone almost 2 years now from proleague (it'll be two years once proleague finals happens)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
