[G] Proportions - Page 2

On February 10 2011 08:05 EatThePath wrote:
I think we wrote our posts at the same time and my pronouns were ambiguous, saltydog. ;D
I was speaking in the direction of OP, for general discussion, sorry for confusion.

This is potentially an enormous discussion / "guide".

On February 10 2011 02:45 monitor wrote:


Tal'Darim Altar has a very well thought out concept-- one of the best yet. The only problem is its overall map size, which is too big. The following numbers explain this by using comparisons to Shakuras Plateau, a commonly accepted "good map" by Blizzard:

      Tal'Darim Altar: 176x176, swerving rush distance, 20 expansions (maybe 16 now?)

      Shakuras Plateau: 156x128, straight rush distance, 14 expansions (2 are useless)

Tal'Darim Alter would be one of the best maps, but its size makes Zerg too powerful in ZvT and ZvP, and possibly Protoss too powerful in PvT. The extra seconds of rush distance gives Zerg too much time to rebuild their army between attacks, and allows them to have 5+ hatcheries with stacked larvae very early and easily.

I am currently in the process of contacting the GSL mappers about map size. I have already talked to winpark, creator of Auir Gardens, and he agrees it needs to be smaller, so he is remaking it.

TL;DR: Tal'Darim Alter would be near perfect if it was smaller.

On March 14 2011 15:20 Nemireck wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Have your overall thoughts on Z being too powerful on large maps changed after watching the GSL and GSTL? It seems to me that when any of those games made it past the early mid-game (that is to say, into the mid-game, but early on in the mid-game) that Z was at a huge disadvantage in both T and P matchups.

On March 15 2011 00:32 Ragoo wrote:


I'm curious as well. I don't really watch GSL at the moment (I'm more into the European scene) but apparently Protoss and Terran are pretty strong on these maps with their lategame armies against Zerg, right?

On February 10 2011 06:08 EatThePath wrote:
These guidelines are good for a starting point. They reflect the state of the art presently, and a bit of the iccup squad's doctrine. That is okay, since monitor shared his guidelines.

As you say, deviating from these dimensions can be balanced depending on the layout. Imagine if Xel'Naga Caverns was enlarged 15-20% and had one or two more expos per side. (The routes and whatnot would have to be reproportioned to accomodate this, it's just a general hypothetical.) This would be totally okay for balance. The nat to nat rush distance would resemble Shakuras. Because there are so many pathways through the center or near-center, all expos are reasonably accessible from any other location. This style lets you have bigger maps. Once you start making zigzags without intersections, big maps get unwieldy.

I don't think the current game knowledge is sufficient to say why big maps don't work. Have you seen the IM vs zenex game on Crevasse? Exactly the opposite of your ZvP imbalance rationale occurred. I'm not saying this invalidates it, but it shows that there are unexplored situations, necessarily: we haven't had extensive top level play on huge maps. One of the problems with Crevasse is the in base natural, which allowed Protoss to do that. I think Tal'Darim is a good candidate for pushing just beyond the size limit. We should watch that one closely.

Brief account of the Crevasse game:+ Show Spoiler +

On March 15 2011 07:31 monitor wrote:


Yeah after the GSL games, it seems to me that Protoss is really powerful in PvZ. I was completely wrong, I underestimated the power of the deathball and Protoss macro. It could still change in the future as metagame evolves, but I do agree Protoss is at an advantage on large maps in PvZ at the moment.

I'm not really sure ZvT, it seems like its relatively balanced to me on larger maps. From the high level games I've seen, whenever the Zerg loses, he fails to expand when he needs to, and also gets the wrong army composition. There was a game with StrifeCo(Z) vs. GoOdy(T) where StrifeCo lost, but lost because he overdid his aggression and failed to expand when he needed to (and saw his opponent expanding). This is just one example, and it very well might be that Zerg is at a disadvantage in ZvT too.

On March 15 2011 13:17 Nemireck wrote:



I think it's also fair to take into consideration that not only are the maps large, but players are essentially gifted 3 bases to start the game as any race, which could leave Z, which is believed to require at least a 1-base advantage to compete in a macro game, at a disadvantage due to the ease at which T and P can keep up in the base-count to the point that an extra base or two isn't as beneficial. (wow, that's a run-on sentence if I ever typed one)

On March 14 2011 20:36 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
You sure 80x80 is enough Overlord chill space?

On August 11 2011 11:19 a176 wrote:
Regarding the camera bounds, mappers need to make a decision regarding the ability of 'fly bys' for air units.

If you take a missile turret and count 7 placement-grid squares away, that is the range it will hit units, so making a decision of how far or how close you want this is important to any matchup, as it determines how easily a muta flock or dropships can sneak in.

I like to use a sensor tower as the 'marker' for the range. you can then adjust the camera bounds to this on the screen (its easily visible).