|
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]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/174_Wuthering%20Heights.jpg)
128x128 conversion, note tanks in shelling distance of natural command centers:
![[image loading]](http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4593/128kd.jpg)
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]](http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/1333/144mp.jpg)
and 152x152:
![[image loading]](http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7223/152xhv.jpg)
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
Germany1536 Posts
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/...
|
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+.
|
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]](http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2403/bwsc2.png) 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
|
pretty sure sc2 is zoomed out alot more
|
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
|
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
Singapore65875 Posts
sick remake imo. and the 152x152 size really seems more like it.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Even from the very beginning of making SC2 maps I could tell these spacings were just off. I knew they were off, but I didn't know why.
Even 160x160 maps can "feel" pretty small, and they sure could seem medium/big in SC1.
My next map is actually absolutely gigantic because I wanted to "feel" the other end of the spectrum. It's gonna be 240x240 +. Maybe I overcompensated a little :D but we'll see. (I'm actually pretty excited as I feel my next map bring some very interesting things to the table for both zerg balance and creaitivity/usefulness to the other races.) I'll be posting a very beta stage of it today/tomorrow so look out for it thread will be called "[Map] (4) Entropy Asylum".
|
It matters so much how you design the layout. You can make a 124x124 be too big of a map in sc2.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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...
|
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.
|
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.
Absolutely not sir.
I have a strong problem with this logic. You see, most people who think this way are only thinking about defending as zerg. Zerg isn't always on defense. When other races are on defense and zerg is on offense, zerg benefits quite a lot when they can abuse their mobility by making the terran or protoss move long distances just to defend. Muta harass, zergling runbys, and nydus canals come to mind.
Another thing about big maps favoring zerg is that when you do the macro style, you have important extra seconds to make a few more units (and when you're macro styling those few more units is usually a lot more units).
|
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.
|
I understand the whole unit pathing thing and I see why it can be ok to have smaller paths as opposed to sc1. I just want to point out that I have never felt a map to be open enough for Ultralisks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
