• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:25
CEST 07:25
KST 14:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed16Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Who will win EWC 2025? The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Server Blocker
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Soulkey Muta Micro Map? [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 600 users

[D] map size, compared to BW

Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
MamiyaOtaru
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States1687 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-19 13:08:07
September 13 2010 10:40 GMT
#1
I have heard some complaints that maps are too small currently. Also, while porting over a map from BW it was clearly too small and cramped feeling when left at the 128x128 playable size it was in BW.

It's hard to decide on a ratio since 128x128 is about the same in terms of how many factories you can cram in, but the siege tanks range is far larger compared to the map then than it was in BW. Does one adjust size based on tank range, or buildings, or compromise, and if so, where? What is a good map size for SC2, conversion or not? How does travel time compare on between BW and SC2 on maps that are the same size tilewise?

For some illustration, when my map was 128x128 the main could fit about the same number of factories for example, but the natural was way too small and the command center / harvesters were tankable from outside the walls, which they were not in the original. I bumped the map up to 144x144, which game me enough room to enlarge the naturals so the economy stuff was tank safe (barring tanks rolling in through the choke of course).

Now the formation in the middle was too small compared to the mains+naturals, and felt cramped besides. I bumped the map out to 152x152 and enlarged the middle. Aesthetically I liked it, though 160x160 probably would have been better to keep the mains to middle ratio the same.

So, pics of the map: Wuthering Heights (after discussion in this thread, I made a thread for it here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=153307 )

BW version:
[image loading]

128x128 conversion, note tanks in shelling distance of natural command centers:
[image loading]

I could expand the naturals without changing map dimensions, but this would encroach on the middle high ground, which is already too small (note how one tank has range all the way across it). Also I want room for units to leave the natural choke without getting shelled by tanks on the high ground, which I couldn't do if the natural were bigger. Or I could enlarge the natural at the expense of the main, but again this underscores how scale is different in SC2

here is the map at 144x144. Natural is now tank safe (even the mining workers. It's very close though). Middle high ground now smaller in comparison:
[image loading]

and 152x152:
[image loading]

Middle is now no longer spanned by a single siege tank. Proportionally it should be bigger yet, but it starts to feel way too large. Tanks really have phenomenal range.

So I'd love to hear thoughts about the right size: 1) in general for SC2, 2) as compared to BW originals, and 3) for this map in particular if that isn't too cheeky
dezi
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Germany1536 Posts
September 13 2010 10:49 GMT
#2
You're right. The map size really is an issue in SC2. Everything seems to be bigger and you just need more space for the same amount of units/minerals/...
TPW Member | My Maps @ TL: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=171486 | Search 'dezi' at EU
Superouman
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
France2195 Posts
September 13 2010 11:02 GMT
#3
Scouting time from start location to another has be to bigger than 30 seconds, otherwise it's way to fast. Maps with around 128*128 dimensions have ~25seconds from start location to another.
To make an acceptable scouting distance, maps have to be 140+*140+.
Search "[SO]" on B.net to find all my maps ||| Cloud Kingdom / Turbo Cruise '84 / Bone Temple / Eternal Empire / Zen / Purity and Industry / Golden Wall / Fortitude / Beckett Industries / Waterfall
Grebliv
Profile Joined May 2006
Iceland800 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-13 11:56:19
September 13 2010 11:49 GMT
#4
I think the biggest problem with most of the sc2 maps is just the map geomerty, nats are almost always edging you closer to the opponent and there's a lot of dead-space around the map instead. It's way better if you take the standard nat setup from bw where the nat isn't expanding your base too much towards the middle just mostly along the edge.

+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

think of the nat on steppes as if it were positioned more in the ! region.

*KIND of forgot to crop that pic but w/e :D
ESV Mapmaking!
MavercK
Profile Joined March 2010
Australia2181 Posts
September 13 2010 11:51 GMT
#5
pretty sure sc2 is zoomed out alot more
Brood War Remake - SC2BW - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145316
CharlieMurphy
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
United States22895 Posts
September 13 2010 13:16 GMT
#6
I was waiting for someone to make a thread like this, the main reason why I haven't been making maps or porting maps is because of this difficulty of size and ratio
..and then I would, ya know, check em'. (Aka SpoR)
Boundz(DarKo)
Profile Joined March 2009
5311 Posts
September 13 2010 14:07 GMT
#7
Yeah this is a huge issue, the pathing on the current blizzard maps is just way too ghey imo. They should really think about the placement of the natural.
konadora *
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Singapore66158 Posts
September 13 2010 14:49 GMT
#8
sick remake imo. and the 152x152 size really seems more like it.
POGGERS
dimfish
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States663 Posts
September 13 2010 16:29 GMT
#9
SC2 is just too different for direct ports, really. I think the number one difference is that armies "feel" smaller than they did in BW. The buildings are the same size, and the units are comparable sizes to builodings, but units don't need as much space to move in groups anymore. We know that BW units are bumping into each other and making maxed-army movements require very large spaces, so the same food army in SC2 looks puny when it can bunch up and stand in an empty expansion, right? This means when you try to port a BW map, fundamentally it will never look right because it's not a matter of scaling the whole map geometry: some areas should be bigger/smaller/the same for SC2 and you end with a different map anyway.

I also think there's no problem with "wasting" space in SC2 maps, either, within reason. Bases are generally the same size as BW, but units don't need as much space to move around efficiently anymore, so there's really more inter-base space on an SC2 map with the same cell dimensions. Let's use that: maps don't have to squares (Steppes of War, Blistering Sands) and we can afford to poke interesting holes in the middles.

Rush distances, as ever, are critical, so let the placement of main bases/rush distance lead you into a skeleton, then design expos within that, and let SC2 maps evolve.
Madsquare
Profile Joined April 2010
Germany157 Posts
September 13 2010 16:41 GMT
#10
this doesnt apply for ports, but for newly created maps.

i think the 128x128 is very good, especially for 2 spawn maps. the thing with sc2 is, that you need more space for the naturals and bases in general (2nd geyser f.e.).
However you do not need so much open space between everything. The map must not be choky and narrow of course, but you can reduce the amount of space quite a bit, just because unit pathing is better and they stack closer together.

on 4 spawn map i sometimes had trouble to make 3 bases AND features, espcially if you are going for mirrored layouts. didnt have any issue doing so with rotational symetry though.

i think its ok to enlarge some maps to 144x144, as it really depends on the layout you chose wich travel distance is how far.
I dont think maps should be bigger, as this really slows down the game. long macro heavy games are usually what we want to achieve, but if they get boring and noone can really attack because of insane distances and players idleing 3/4 of the time doing nothing they suck super heavily.
I dont have any trouble placing 12 or 14 bases on a 128x128 2 spawns without reducing the openess to an unfavourable degree.

Also, i think from a spectator point of view its more enjoyable if the players are constantly in each others face, than for example spending the first 15minutes on triple expanding.

greetings, madsquare.
I do not obey any norms. I redefine standard with every thought I make.
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
September 13 2010 16:50 GMT
#11
--- Nuked ---
CagedMind
Profile Joined February 2010
United States506 Posts
September 13 2010 17:31 GMT
#12
It matters so much how you design the layout. You can make a 124x124 be too big of a map in sc2.
your micro has been depleted
sushiman
Profile Joined September 2003
Sweden2691 Posts
September 13 2010 17:54 GMT
#13
I'd love to see bigger maps, the current ones feel really cramped. Though I'd imagine that the larger maps gets, the harder it will be for zerg to keep up since they need to spread creep everywhere.
1000 at least.
Numy
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
South Africa35471 Posts
September 13 2010 18:13 GMT
#14
On September 14 2010 02:54 sushiman wrote:
I'd love to see bigger maps, the current ones feel really cramped. Though I'd imagine that the larger maps gets, the harder it will be for zerg to keep up since they need to spread creep everywhere.


I also have a fear that Blizzard have balanced some mechanics around these small gimicky maps instead of around all feasible maps.
dimfish
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States663 Posts
September 13 2010 18:39 GMT
#15
On September 14 2010 02:54 sushiman wrote:
I'd love to see bigger maps, the current ones feel really cramped. Though I'd imagine that the larger maps gets, the harder it will be for zerg to keep up since they need to spread creep everywhere.


That's a good point. I wonder if we just need some big maps for pros to experiment on, though. On a large map zerg might be fine with nydus for everything after 3rd expo--just keep overlords/lings/whatever to watch enemy movement and pop out to meet attacks. That type of play doesn't seem necessary on any of the current ladder maps.
kickinhead
Profile Joined December 2008
Switzerland2069 Posts
September 13 2010 18:43 GMT
#16
On September 14 2010 02:54 sushiman wrote:
I'd love to see bigger maps, the current ones feel really cramped. Though I'd imagine that the larger maps gets, the harder it will be for zerg to keep up since they need to spread creep everywhere.


I actually think bigger Maps would make life MUCH easier for Zerg. The creep-Mechanic is kinda broken anyways and it doesn't really help much on the offense, but stuff like:

- harder time for any kind of Proxys by T or P --> better chances of surviving early-game with decent economy
- harder time to apply ridiculous pressure with 2-gate-zealots --> better chances of surviving early-game with decent economy
- longer time for Reapers/Hellions to get into your base --> better chances of surviving early-game with decent economy
- Nydus worms would become much stronger
- Speed of certain Units like Zerglings could be utilized better
- Longer push-distances for slow-moving Terran Mech-Armies

would definitely help out Zerg immensely.

Although I don't think it would fix current balance-issues, I, as a Zerg-player, would take bigger Maps without cliffs above the Nat/main, no backdoor-rocks and not ridiculously wide open naturals ANY day over the balance-changes that we've heard of in the Situation report...
https://soundcloud.com/thesamplethief
figq
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
12519 Posts
September 13 2010 18:48 GMT
#17
On September 13 2010 19:40 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
So I'd love to hear thoughts about the right size: 1) in general for SC2, 2) as compared to BW originals, and 3) for this map in particular if that isn't too cheeky
1) In SC2 the whole map pool needs to consist of bigger and wider maps. Also I'd experiment more with how many resources to be per base (hope that's part of the same discussion). I think it would help to have less resources per base, compared to now, so that people are forced to expand more, and do not reach the supply cap as easily
2) I'm not sure if it's only the grid ratios - perhaps it's also the new pathing and grouping of units - but SC2 maps seem too small compared to BW. The sense of epicness is lost, it's not just the gameplay. Watching a brood war game is a true war. Huge armies cross the field step by step across the map, and it takes them forever to reach the other side etc. In SC2 this is almost non-existent, they run a few seconds and BAM! and gg. Blink and you've missed the SC2 game.
3) I'm far from map-specialist, but would prefer the 3rd version, not just because it's bigger, but it seems to fit the proportions best.
If you stand next to my head, you can hear the ocean. - Day[9]
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-09-13 23:29:16
September 13 2010 22:58 GMT
#18
--- Nuked ---
MamiyaOtaru
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States1687 Posts
September 13 2010 23:54 GMT
#19
Like people pointed out, larger increases rush distances and improves defender's advantage (unless you proxy). Scouting time is increased too, but of course you don't want that to be too large or you'll never get anything in before a wall or never get your Ovie there in time. And yeah, creep.. it feels like I have to do without that anyway against anyone with common sense to kill off tumors. It's useful on defense but for offense it doesn't seem like the distances would hurt too much.

On September 14 2010 01:41 Madsquare wrote:
The map must not be choky and narrow of course, but you can reduce the amount of space quite a bit, just because unit pathing is better and they stack closer together.
this is true. Tank range makes me want to have larger maps, but unit clumping makes it so they could be smaller. On the whole though it feels like too many maps are too small to allow flanking and such against tanks. That's been a common complaint in some of the Terran OP threads.

Also, i think from a spectator point of view its more enjoyable if the players are constantly in each others face, than for example spending the first 15minutes on triple expanding.
this may be true, but those longer games and less immediate build order wins is what I'd like to see. I'm inclined to go a bit larger then, at least as an experiment. That is to say we may disagree a little on motivation and goals, so your post confirms that I want to go a little larger :D

So yeah, I think we need a some larger maps to experiment with at least. Might help settle things a little

On September 13 2010 23:49 konadora wrote:
sick remake imo. and the 152x152 size really seems more like it.
thanks konadora. I'll put up a map thread some time with the 152 version and can discuss that particular map there.
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
September 14 2010 00:00 GMT
#20
--- Nuked ---
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 35m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 289
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 14961
PianO 85
ajuk12(nOOB) 18
LuMiX 1
Britney 0
Stormgate
NightEnD15
Dota 2
monkeys_forever772
League of Legends
JimRising 777
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1490
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor49
Other Games
summit1g12525
shahzam1365
WinterStarcraft412
ViBE217
ROOTCatZ44
Trikslyr27
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick4572
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH260
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota2511
League of Legends
• Lourlo1372
• Stunt674
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
4h 35m
Epic.LAN
6h 35m
CSO Contender
11h 35m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 4h
Online Event
1d 10h
Esports World Cup
3 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
4 days
Esports World Cup
5 days
Esports World Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
Championship of Russia 2025
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.