|
Hi!
I made this topic because to adress a question I've had for a while now.
The biggest part of the ladder pool consists of 4 player maps, but I really don't understand why, is there any plus of a 4p map over a 2p map?
Most maps are 4p/16base, once you have the 4 designated bases, you have to take an awkward different base. Every good 2p map I see has a nice base flow, but most 4p maps have at least one awkward point in expanding.
So, is there anything important I'm missing?
Thanks for fixing the title!
|
4 player maps are typically larger and less linear leading to greater strategic variety. They offer different gameplay than do 2 player maps.
|
Germany1426 Posts
macro games are more likley on 4 player maps, 2 player maps are often about certain timing attacks which end the game rather quickly. and often on 4 player maps there is a larger variety of strategies that are viable, such as fast expansions or early 3rd base play and so on and so on.
So in my opinion its much more fun to play on a 4 player map.
|
They also add more spawns, obviously, which can have an effect on scouting and strats. Also I feel that they "justify" larger maps. On the flip side, they can also cause imbalance based on spawn positions. Regardless, they add variety, which, I think, is a good thing. I really want to see more 2 player maps on ladder, and a nice 4 player map that doesn't need cross spawns or disabled close spawns and no rotational imbalance.
|
as far as the ladder is concerned, blizzard has always had trouble designing 2p maps. their solution was to make 4p maps, which are bigger, to save them the trouble. but even then, they've not been the best.
as far your 'awkward' expansions, this is the nature of these maps. at this point in the game you should already have enough army or income to have no trouble in take other bases and defending them.
not everything in the game can be that easy.
|
But why can't they make 2p maps that are larger and less linear?
And how are more strats possible on 4p maps?
What if you just make a 2p map with a similar expansion patterns to a 4p map but without the positional imbalance and the awkward expansion point?
Is there any reason that this is not possible?
|
|
|
Well the ladder is kind known for cheese. It's a lot easier to cheese on a 2p map because you know where your opponent spawns. Personally I think pros could use more 2p maps, but 2p maps also tend to cut down on macro builds, so maybe that's not good.
|
That's a 5 minute advantage compared to a 20 minute game.
Do you think it's worth it?
Are 4 player maps necessary for a good game, do you prefer 4 player maps or 2 player maps?
Sorry if I'm annoying, I just really want to get this totally clear.
4 Player maps make for worse scouting, but isn't that just the problem of Starcraft 2?
Thanks for the namechange!
|
|
|
On January 21 2012 07:06 Barrin wrote:
Worse initial scouting is not good or bad necessarily. It can be either, or both. Mostly, it's just different. Variety is good. But in sc2 I would prefer to see more 2p maps than 4p maps.
Okay, and what is your opinion on the 2 other problems I mentioned?
1. Almost every 4p map has at least some sort of positional imbalance.
2. Most of the 4p rotational maps have an awkward 'expansion bump' once you run out of standard bases.
That adds another question, do you prefer rotational or any other symmetry?
(I feel rotational maps are more affected by positional imbalance than they should)
|
I think positional imbalance has the potential to be a good thing. From what I understand, there were many good asymmetrical maps in BW -- not "positionally imbalanced" reflect or rotational maps, maps with completely different terrain. I remember how Tyler talked about how on this one map, you could not let the terran get siege at position X, or it was game over. It was balanced, both players had equal chance of winning, but the struggle tended to center around preventing the terran from getting that, without over-committing resources to it and falling behind elsewhere.
That said, I think most maps without positional imbalance will do better until we've developed the SCII metagame quite far, and pros can spend time developing the map metagame. Which, of course, is like 3 years after LotV. So when I'm thirty.
|
On January 21 2012 06:41 Barrin wrote:
IMO the greatest potential benefit - overshadowing any others - is not knowing where your opponent spawns immediately.
This sometimes extra time before being scouted can let players get away with early aggression builds or even greedy cc/nexus (and of course hatch) first builds.
The greatest con is having the second half of your bases look exactly like the first half.
This is all there is to it.
|
What nightmarjoo said. He's always right.
|
Because you get away with bigger maps and more expansions, making for the most epic of epic lategame matches.
Other than that there is not good reason, 2p has way more potential layouts, 4p is very limited cos you always have to look out for positional balance.
Also in 4p you can't proxy or shit like this without scouting, but on the other hand there is some huge scouting luck depending on when you scout your opponent.
|
Proxies.
They are way easier when you know where your opponent is.
You could make big maps for 2 players as well.
I like the variety of 2/3/4 player maps and I that you can't easily proxy on all of them. Especially on ladder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
