|
I was getting a little tired of seeing what is IMO a mistake, happen on what otherwise would be really good maps, so here a little discussion on something I've been trying to perfect in my more recent maps.
Today I would like to introduce my fellow mappers to a different concept of deadzones.
deadzones as they are known are nothing new but hopefully after this you will be looking at it in a different way.
this way of looking at deadzones is much closer to representing the flankability of areas on the map.
as you probably already, and should know, is that flanking plays a very important role in military strategy and therefor it is equaly important to allow this on a map.
if you're still wondering what I'm talking about, let's take a look at some visual examples, taking the recent TLMC winner, echo by uvantak
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/p65HGK8.jpg)
now let's look at it again, with deadzones highlighted.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t8Epo17.jpg)
these zones are areas units will have to walk around in order to form a proper concave or flank
zones marked with A are perfectcly fine, they form chokes that are not overly difficult to hold for a defender but are also flankable for an overwhelming offensive force.
zones marked with B are already a little more difficult to get around, which isn't that bad, and sometimes desired for making stronger defenders advantage, however should probably be avoided mid map.
zones marked with C are of a size that is already more questionable, it is difficult to set up flanks
and finaly, theres zones marked with D, these are very tought to flank and imo should be fully avoided.
as a note to this, the strength of deadzones can be compensated with the width of areas to allow better concaves and reduce defensive potential.
the problem with that however, is that it does exactly what it says on the tin, areas with to much pathable space become to hard to hold for a defensive force.
echo, applies this concept well in some areas, but has room for improvement.
now let's take a look at some other maps, something everyone is probably familiar with, overgrowth.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7QXUEHC.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FKWhn7n.png)
overgrowth applies this concept incredibly well actually.
it has several A zones on the map that provide chokes, but also incorporates B and C zones to allow for a stronger defenders advantage.
there is one very notable D zone, which is the cliff surface behind the gold, the posibility of the gold getting attacked from low ground somewhat compensates for this.
moving on, we're heading over to frost, a map which applies the concept in full reverse.
+ Show Spoiler +
near the bases there are some interesting small deadzones to flank around yet still provide chokes.
however looking out on the open map there are incredibly big zones which make breaking the 4base stronghold very difficult, this makes for turtly maps.
frost arguebly compensates for this by being 4p and having to leave the 4base zone for more resources, however that creates another problem, as the defender has an equally hard time to get around those, making defensive players either turtle 4base and push to win, or take questionable options of risking either defenses or poor economy.
looking further, we're going to take 2 more TLMC finalists.
first off, cactus valley.
+ Show Spoiler +
as you can see, cactus valley is very similair to overgrowth in that it has bigger areas near bases for a more defensive setup, as the map outside of that is somewhat more open, but still kept in check by A zones.
our last stop will be adun's shrine, a map that applies this concept not as well.
+ Show Spoiler +
the zone marked with A is not as bad, B however becomes more questionable, and C marked zones make you wonder how you're supposed to flank or set up a concave at all.
so what do we learn from this?
with greater deadzones, chokes become harder to get arround, and enhance the strength of chokes.
with smaller deadzones, movement becomes more fluid and promotes more action as opposed to sitting behind chokes.
it is important to place larger deadzones near starting locations for stronger defenders advantage, but be carefull not to overdo it as it promotes stale play.
as the map progresses outwards, it is important to progress to smaller deadzones to avoid split map scenario's
TL;DR, deadzones play a huge roll in defending and attacking areas and deserve more thought in maps.
|
On March 10 2015 21:57 Meavis wrote:
as you probably already, and should know, is that flanking plays a very important role in military strategy and therefor it is equaly important to allow this on a map.
[...]
deadzones play a huge roll in defending and attacking areas and deserve more thought in maps.
This is definitely true. However, there is one critical aspect that you seem to have overlooked: Facilitating tactical maneuvers invalidates strategic maneuvers. By making it easy to set up flanking attacks quickly anywhere you remove the necessity to spread out units in advance and keep an eye on the opposition's movements. Neo Planet S has no "deadzones" of type A or B at all and this is the primary reason why maneuvering on that map is much more interesting than on Overgrowth. The same can be said about Bel'Shir Beach with its large "deadzone" in the centre of the map.
So while Adun's Shrine isn't a great map in my opinion, I think it's unfair to criticise it for not being very flankable. Not every map needs an open middle with a few obstacles like Alterzim.
|
I'm all for having multiple frameworks for map analysis, so thanks for the post meavis. And some people may not have thought about it in this way and this will probably open some eyes. ^^
That said, I don't think you should tie flanking and defender's advantage so strongly to a simple measurement of how big your airspace pockets are. It really depends on the map's design and flow, where the bases are, how they will be taken in different matchups, what the travel distances are on different routes, etc etc etc.
It's a good rule of thumb though, but I strongly caution against saying "use size D unpathable areas extremely rarely or never". It really depends on the map and the design intentions.
+ Show Spoiler [pedantic] +
A more general concept and perhaps less hand-tying would be that of "alternate routes", in sort of a graph theory line of thought. Take any area where you wish to analyze engagements, and figure out what the travel times are on the next closest routes that lead to the same fighting area. If it's important to provide flankability (which we usually just lump in with "openness" for shorthand) in a certain area then this should be at the top of your list of considerations.
Note that even if flankability is important, it doesn't necessarily have to be easy. For example, I can envision a lot of scenarios where you want midmap fighting areas that can have flanks if they are planned out, but which don't allow seat-of-the-pants auto win zerg a-move type stuff. And this can make the gameplay much more strategic and positional, which I think is a goal most of the time.
[edit]
so what do we learn from this?
with greater deadzones, chokes become harder to get arround, and enhance the strength of chokes.
with smaller deadzones, movement becomes more fluid and promotes more action as opposed to sitting behind chokes
This is a good summary but again I caution against taking it as an absolute. Even when fights aren't actively happening in Starcraft, there is still "action" all the time in decisions players are making and how they position their armies. (Obviously sitting at your newest base with sieged tanks and sensor towers isn't quite what I mean.) Chokes and route intersections with large intervening path boundaries can make for lots of "abstract action" while players jockey for position and timing. Especially at the very top level you see players all the time making army movements that don't result in fights but which are part of the map awareness and presentation-of-threats dance. By all means avoid turtley designs but chokes and long walk times don't always mean turtley.
And on the other hand, if your map is just a bunch of open space and easily navigated small obstacles, this can lead to even more severe turtling in matchups where one side cannot move or fight in that kind of environment, forcing them to stay at home until they have a winning deathball.
|
Very very interesting thread. Thanks for that insight !
Edit : and another proof Overgrowth is one of the greatest maps ever ^^
|
On March 11 2015 08:28 [PkF] Wire wrote:Edit : and another proof Overgrowth is one of the greatest maps ever ^^
By that logic any standard map is one of the greatest maps ever?
The main issue Meavis is that as AndG said, the lack of big unpathable areas is the death of strategical movement, meanwhile small unpathable pieces allow for more army scale tactics. This is not a discussion about never using big unpathable areas in the center this is a discussion about using them smartly, or end up with deathdull ass maps. The areas you point out on Echo are areas which I want people to fight and think for their surrounds, and not simply 1A their way forward.
There is truth about big unapathable areas facilitating split map scenarios, but these are not the only defining points, the amount of paths and the distance between them is far more important than having big unpathable areas imo.
|
How are your feelings on air-blockers on the edges of 3/5 player maps like merry go round? I am planning in making a 3 player map with as little deadzones as possible, and am wondering what I should do.
Edit- hmm maybe this isn't actually the best thread to ask on. What I really am wondering is how airspace on the outside of maps negatively influences gameplay.
Anyways, nice thread!
|
On March 16 2015 04:13 SwedenTheKid wrote:
How are your feelings on air-blockers on the edges of 3/5 player maps like merry go round? I am planning in making a 3 player map with as little deadzones as possible, and am wondering what I should do.
Edit- hmm maybe this isn't actually the best thread to ask on. What I really am wondering is how airspace on the outside of maps negatively influences gameplay.
Anyways, nice thread!
Air space itself does not necessarily hurt the quality of games. However, for assymetric- and circular symmetry maps air space needs to be balanced equally for all spawns, just like every other aspect of the terrain. Differences in air space near bases - particularily the first three - creates an imbalance, as some spawns will be naturally more vulnerable to air harass and drops. Air blockers can be used to negate that issue.
|
Interesting read. Deadzones and their placement are definitely an interesting topic.
I think I have given my point on the issue multiple times already, but here it goes one more time: Maps these days emphasize on creating paths and interesting tactical terrain usage too much. It often just ends with maps wormholing armies around, since every area on the map has pretty much the same tactical combat value. Hence the only remaining strategical variable is time, which you want as much as possible, so all engagments happen right in front of bases.
The usage of deadzones to prevent easily maneuverable open areas and create choked up 3rd bases lead to that.
As the OP example showcases Overgrowth is an interesting example for that, because it uses deadzones very well to create defensive advantages while creating a very different combat area when you step down from your plateau. Though I personally believe that removing the area marked as b) in the middle would improve that even more.
Also the strategical implications of deadzones on people's unit choices are heavily undervalued in my opinion.
|
|
|
This discussion thread is seriously lacking discussion, and even though it isn't very long I don't think we're all on the same page here. Since Meavis didn't bother to give a definition for deadzones, let me give it:
- WTF is a deadzone?
A deadzone is a continuous area where units cannot walk that is surrounded on all sides by pathable terrain, thus allowing units to move around the deadzone (a.k.a. flank).
With that out of the way, here are some statements I disagree with.
On March 10 2015 21:57 Meavis wrote:
as the map progresses outwards, it is important to progress to smaller deadzones to avoid split map scenarios
This seems like a faulty generalization. Sure there are ways how large deadzones can facilitate split map scenarios, but likewise you can use deadzones to avoid them. In any case the most crucial aspects of a map regarding splitability are central map width and the expansion layout, not deadzones.
On March 10 2015 21:57 Meavis wrote:
with greater deadzones, chokes become harder to get arround, and enhance the strength of chokes.
See above; deadzones can just as well be used to decrease the strength of chokes e.g. by disparity between the time an attacker needs to bounce between several chokes and the time a defender needs to reinforce his defenses.
On March 17 2015 01:33 Barrin wrote:
Rocks are temporary deadzones.
Rocks could certainly be used as deadzones but rarely actually are. Most commonly, destroying rocks turns a big deadzone into two smaller ones or separates a new deadzone from the map edges. These are different things and shouldn't be mixed up.
On March 17 2015 01:33 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +it is important to place larger deadzones near starting locations for stronger defenders advantage, but be carefull not to overdo it as it promotes stale play.
as the map progresses outwards, it is important to progress to smaller deadzones to avoid split map scenario's , but be careful not to overdo it as it can promote "circle syndrome"
All else being equal I don't see what the size of deadzones would have to do with CS.
On March 16 2015 06:47 Big J wrote:
Maps these days emphasize on creating paths and interesting tactical terrain usage too much.
Not so much disagree with this, I just don't get it. Blizzard maps or community maps? Recent examples?
And a question for Meavis:
On March 10 2015 21:57 Meavis wrote:
I was getting a little tired of seeing what is IMO a mistake
So what, exactly, is the mistake? Having large deadzones in the middle of a map, or what?
|
On March 18 2015 02:59 And G wrote:And a question for Meavis: Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 21:57 Meavis wrote:
I was getting a little tired of seeing what is IMO a mistake So what, exactly, is the mistake? Having large deadzones in the middle of a map, or what?
the mistake is when flanking options are extremely limited on maps, the fewer places a flank or engagement can be made, the less likely we will see either side commit to an engagement and get stale games, or if done the other way around, area's get to open and people wouldn't want to move through them exactly because they will get flanked, which also leads to stale games.
again, this varies from case to case as not every layout is the same and will have the rest of the layout influencing flankability on a map.
as for
On March 18 2015 02:59 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 21:57 Meavis wrote:
as the map progresses outwards, it is important to progress to smaller deadzones to avoid split map scenarios This seems like a faulty generalization. Sure there are ways how large deadzones can facilitate split map scenarios, but likewise you can use deadzones to avoid them. In any case the most crucial aspects of a map regarding splitability are central map width and the expansion layout, not deadzones.
yes, it goes both ways, and the best way to get the right measurements of chokes and deadzones would probably be to analyze the layout and see where the possibilitys of engagements are, how biased they are towards too open or too choky, and how the rest of the map plays around this.
|
Hi all I've been wanting to participate to the discussion but always tried to express some big general truths which always ended up being not satisfying enough to me.
So I decided to go the other way around and speak about very particular and specifc situations and map design from a player point of view.
What I think we should take in consideration when speaking about deadzones and flankability are the areas where a fight, and a potential flank/surround will happen. Also, it may be totally obvious, but the fact that the limit of the maps are the biggest deadzones shouldn't be ignored. Third, the actual space when the flanked player can manouver to avoid the flank is critical. Last, when you're the one being flanked the biggest factor is vision.
so here are my specific examples, I will just discuss what the OP said about some deazones in well known maps and see what can be added if we take more things into account than the sheer size of a deadzone :
1 - Overgrowth, the corner 4th, 'B' deadzone, TvZ :
This is to me the biggest flankable area and the biggest danger when you play Terran against Zerg on this map. It should be noted A+++ in this context. Reasons are :
- 99% of the time the zerg will choose this base as his 4th.
- when playing bio vs zerg, the great thing is the "parade push" toward the 4th after 1/1 is done.
- The low ground corridor to the 4th is too thin to split your army (this is why map limit is important)
- the corridor to the 4th is on low ground which means you absolutely have no vison of the flank coming at you
So going with all your army in this corridor to hit the 4th in a normal biomine parade push is a death wish (not mentionning your are totally open to runbyes but that's another story)
On the other hand the upper ground area, where you've put a 'A' deadzone, is actually much better to avoid being flanked :
- you have plenty of space to split
- you have vision
- it's extremely unlikely that the zerg has enough time to run some units all the way around to hit you in the back.
- if you come quick enough the whole zerg army will be at his natural or third, meaning all his army will have to go through a small chocke. You just have to burrow mines on this choke, split units, and send 4-5 marauders to kill the 4th.
- taht's also because the rocks are usually not destroyed yet meaning that this 'C' deadzone on your map is actually a 'F' or a 'G'
2 - Frost, central 4th, 'D' deadzone, TvZ :
This example is great because it shows how vision and map set up is important.
To me that 'D' deadzone, is just big enough to make the map balanced. It's a very good deadzone. Let's imagine that the terran is taking his 4th and it's the zerg who is trying to be agressive. The spawn positions are not vertical
- as terran you have to protect your 4th, but also your third which means you'll postion yourself slightly toward the center and let the back door corridor of your 4th not as defended as you would wish.
- If you don't have the control of the Xel'naga, you're in the dark. You're in the middle of a massive flanck situation, zerg can come on your third, on your 4th front door, on the backdoor and also from the dead zone with his muta.
- if you have control of the Xel'naga, it means you're not so much under pressure anymore, but also that you have moved a big chunk of your army toward the XNT (assuming one marine alone can't hold it for too long) and then runbyes at the 4th can occur AND you are in the middle of a wide open area which means you are totally flankable.
In conlusion if 'D' was smaller, it would be impossible to hold, the attacking player would have to many options for you to defend. So not only this 'D' deadzone doesn't prevent you from being flanked but also is necessary to give you a chance as a defender.
(A cool side effect imo is such a large deadzone gives more power to flying units.)
All in all it's a pretty cool big ass deazone 
3 - General conclusion : size matters but is not all Deazone are just a piece of the battlefield and their size has to be balanced with their surrounding and the strategical importance of the area.
In particular, I think we'll need a lot of games on the new maps to fully understand the flankability on them, Cactus and Echo for instance may not end up being how we think they are at first glance....
(The greatest thing about all this is I haven't spoken about protosses and their forcefields who make the flankability of an area totally different than for the other races, but I guess FF are more related to chockes' width than the size of the deadzones around it?)
|
|
|
On March 19 2015 21:12 Barrin wrote:
(black = deadzone)
That's kind of the point though. In your left picture, the black areas aren't deadzones (since they don't allow units to flank around them), just extensions of the map borders, and their primary effect is that they decrease the central map width. If they were removed, the map proportions would change, but the topology wouldn't. And deadzones are all about topology.
In the right picture, I don't think much would change if the large deadzone was split into several smaller deadzones. In fact, I think I can split it in a way that results in even more CS:
+ Show Spoiler +
As a side note, my thoughts on CS in general:
+ Show Spoiler +I don't consider CS to be a property of maps, but rather of specific situations (expansion patterns). When designing a map, my personal guideline is that no CS should exist in any reasonable situation where both players are on four bases; if CS is created by one player taking a fifth then it's a very aggresive map; if CS only appears once both players are on 5 bases then it's a standard map, and if there is no CS in 5v5 situations then it's a macro map. This sounds simple, but since pretty much all my maps have many different expansion patterns it often becomes quite complex.
|
On March 18 2015 02:59 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 06:47 Big J wrote:
Maps these days emphasize on creating paths and interesting tactical terrain usage too much. Not so much disagree with this, I just don't get it. Blizzard maps or community maps? Recent examples?
To give an example what I mean with paths (probably the most extreme one):
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zwm3Dft.jpg)
Red and Green are the two paths that your opponent can take to your base. Now what happens is that he enters a path to attack you. Now there are only two possible interactions:
- you have been on the path all along because you were attacking him at the same moment. The only maneuver is now back or forth.
- you have not been on the path. Given the nature of the path, it is nearly impossible to enter the path somewhere at his side or in the mid of it. The only way to fight is that you fall all the way back to your base and wait for his attack.
My point is that there are no harder or easier areas for an army to walk through. Even if we take the rather wide middle of Catallena around the Octopus, there have been those 3towers placed to choke up everything again. Thus regardless of where I take the combat, the landscape is tactically speaking the same. Hence there is no reason to ever use those parts of the map when defending at home is just superior.
An similar example how Terrain was created to play... exactly the same as anywhere else on the map. (it's a very good map regardless in my opinion)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qh0USOI.jpg)
Look at the deadspace in the middle of the red area. What does it do? It makes the red area behave exactly the same as every other area on the map. Instead of adding tactical value to the map by creating different combat zones whether you attack through the middle or through the top, the top has been choked up to behave exactly the same as the middle path. There is no decision to make that I might not want to push down there if e.g. I'm relying on forcefields while I really want to get combats to take place there if I play Ultralisks who need a lot of surface area. It just doesn't matter, because that path behaves just like the other one.
As a Zerg player I believe these map features are one of the reasons why we are playing Swarm Hosts every game against Protoss and Ultralisk builds are dead. Everything is being choked up to the point that early ling-surround-play is dead, Ultralisks don't find enough space to maneuver around quickly and thus you are forced into Roach/Hydra type of play which just transitions into Swarm Hosts. Even more because Swarm Hosts profit from the impossibility to maneuver around locusts on a path. But on an open field you can try to go around a locust wave and make it hard to catch you by going left or right.
E.g. Frost, Whirlwind, Polar Night or Alterzim did not allow for these sorts of Swarm Host plays as easily but were much better for Ultralisks. And also showcase that there is no balance reason to choke up areas against Zerg.
But most of all, they played differently. While it doesn't matter if I make Catallena or Merry Go Round big maps, when the tactical features are the ones of Heavy Rain again.
|
|
|
@bigJ: I think the maps you mention were "bad" for SH (lol good one) ((jk)) because of the size of the area needing static defense, not openness for maneuvering. Indeed you don't really need openness necessarily, just alternate routes, which "deadzones" could provide. (Though I think that label can be limiting in some contexts, perhaps this one.)
But it's a point well made about homogeneous terraining which is necessary to an extent for balance imo, but avoidance of which isn't explored enough apart from Bliz maps that have other egregious problems that drown out terraining conclusions.
|
It makes the red area behave exactly the same as every other area on the map. Instead of adding tactical value to the map by creating different combat zones whether you attack through the middle or through the top, the top has been choked up to behave exactly the same as the middle path. There is no decision to make that I might not want to push down there if e.g. I'm relying on forcefields while I really want to get combats to take place there if I play Ultralisks who need a lot of surface area. It just doesn't matter, because that path behaves just like the other one.
As a Zerg player I believe these map features are one of the reasons why we are playing Swarm Hosts every game against Protoss and Ultralisk builds are dead. Everything is being choked up to the point that early ling-surround-play is dead,
While this is venturing a bit off-topic, I agree with you in that many maps these days (blizz and user-made, although actually user-made are the bigger offenders here) have a severe lack of variety when it comes to chokes and corridors. Everything across the map (other than the main ramp, obviously) plays it safe in that 12-18 width range, with the occasional huge ramps somewhere in the middle. I prefer maps that have some small chokes mixed with some huge wide-open areas so that all playstyles are possible if the player is smart in choosing where he positions his army and engages. I think this is one of the most undervalued aspects of maps right now (it seems like it is almost entirely overlooked by map competition judges, for some odd reason). I think there's a lot of decent and good maps out right now that could be outstanding maps if some of the chokes/hallways were manipulated to give more variety.
Anyway, back to topic. This thread is awesome and made me think about some things I never considered in SC2. I agree that you can't just blindly say "dead zones of x size are good/bad" as it depends on the surrounding area and how that fits into the map. It would be nice to be able to make set rules so you don't have to think as hard, but I just don't think it can ever be that simple.
For instance, I don't think every pathway ever made should be flankable, as the original post seems to suggest. What if it is a lowground area that has small ramps leading to highground as its only exits? A player is already taking a risk having his army there, so one might think he should be "rewarded" by not being able to be flanked as well. But too lengthy a dead zone protecting an army's flank might lead to circle syndrome. Which brings us back to context and your better judgment.
|
On March 20 2015 06:02 Fatam wrote:For instance, I don't think every pathway ever made should be flankable, as the original post seems to suggest. What if it is a lowground area that has small ramps leading to highground as its only exits? A player is already taking a risk having his army there, so one might think he should be "rewarded" by not being able to be flanked as well. But too lengthy a dead zone protecting an army's flank might lead to circle syndrome. Which brings us back to context and your better judgment.
Technically basically every map feature besides main/nat is flankable, it's just a matter of how long the alternate path is to the flanking edge. I'm going to draw a graph representation of the maps used as examples in the thread to illustrate this. Not that I'm calling you out, lol. I completely agree that specific locations need to be weighed in the context of how they function on a map. Increasing the difficulty of flankability is an important way of adjusting strategic value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MUf46pl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qIhdn7z.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y9hLtWq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pobHqc9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/43KkPQK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yq7koZQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VoWA6xG.png)
