[M] (2) Overgrown

No matter, just seen some of the maps people post here and what players play and made a comment based on that. It was same with starcraft 1 but even more boring. You had a problem on getting players to anything else than Lost Temple or Hunters. Basically the whole map pool were made of 2 different maps the other one having also a version with more minerals. There are also great maps with different approach like Blood Bath, Dire Straits and so.

All maps do not have to be played by pros or regular map pools, it just strikes me that nobody does any different. In my opinion the maps should not be taken account when thinking balance at all. They are in my opinion a separate thing. I never even thought someone could think maps when making balance so reading what you wrote was new to me. If the balance is good players can do whatever on all different formats with any race and there is no problems like in Starcraft 1.

If everybody always does the same stuff there is no possibility to find something new. A new standard will not be set. If people try different approach and be creative, someday someone will come up with something awesome that other people start to copy.

In good balance there is something else on those situations if the standard approach do not work. I think what you mention is not an issue in brood war, it still do not seem imbalanced no matter the map. There are things like drops, recalls, specialized units like reaver, storm and such. Even disruption web can be of use in that situation, its not like its impossible if its not possible on standard approach. I always thought high position and ramps favours terran most and protoss had less than others to gain from it. Actually disruption web might be a good solution, if im right the lurkers wont shoot when under disruption web and zealots can just run on them. With couple of support spells the position can be broken with units that should never have a change. This is good balance that there is something you can do in all situations. Terran breaks that with siege tanks, science vessel and superior range and what zerg does, maybe muta, guardian, defiler or ultra ?

Ultra might be a problem if there are buildings to block, but guardian would surely break that position. Im pretty sure you cannot give me an example where the player can do nothing. If the players do not use these approaches, it is their fault not of imbalance. They have been given the tools but for some reason avoid using them.

Disruption web for example, is an ability you rarely will see if ever, so people have forgotten that it exists. It is actually quite strong. Corsairs are a unit that is popular in that match up already.

That imbalance of how hard it is to control your units, 12 control groups is in disadvantage of zerg. I personally do not like it that the game have been made purposedly more hard just to give players harder time. Controlling lots of Zerglings in brood war is a nightmare. They wont even fit 1-9 groups. In starcraft 2 the game speed is so high on multiplayer that it does the same thing, completely shuts off the game to some players as unplayable and they might never get used to it as they stop playing after few games. These games are purposedly made hard. The game speed is more understandable as it produces better experience for the viewers but the 12 groups is not. Its like making the game worse to be able to say our game is harder than the others. In Dune 2 you could only select one unit which is horrible for the player, then even on command & conquer you can select as many as you want but still in starcraft which came later you can select 12. The control groups of 12 is the thing i would change in brood war, nothing else comes into mind. If not the groups, then i would want to give the players ability to select more units even the groups would still be 12. In starcraft 2 i believe the group is much larger and you have a possibility to select all units with one button. Not sure if this button is present in brood war too.


Those things you mention, its not an issue of balance, if there is a map you described its not like one race do not have nothing at all. Terran uses liberators and vikings, zerg uses muta and protoss uses phoenix and oracle so where is the imbalance ?

If those units are itself imbalanced it would be in every map so somehow you give me the feeling that because the game itself is already imbalanced, then the map makers must use their creativity to make maps where the game is more balanced as the game itself is not. In that example i suppose the air units are imbalanced already, so the map makers want to create maps where air units are harder to use.

Again i do not feel that brood war have this problem, but every map is fine. Just pick a map, pick a race or be random and start playing, it is not imbalanced and never have been. This is what i call good design. Superb even.

I do not have experience on starcarft 2 so i cannot say, but might be that if i would i could say to you that there is no imbalance in starcraft 2 either, its just that the players do not still fully know what they are doing. Still, when listening to Artosis speak it seems clear that there have been many real balance problems within starcraft 2 history. There are also many units and abilities that have been completely removed from the game, this have never been the case in starcraft 1. All the abilities and units are still the same than in their release date. This creates a stable environment to improve as a player and map maker. In this aspect at least, brood war is way better as a game.

This reminds me of Warhammer, where the company shifts the balance in purpose towards certain models they want to sell more at that time. Its a never ending cycle of imbalance. But where is the benefit for blizzard to keep shifting starcraft 2 balance is something i do not know.

There also seems to be something similar to politics involved in starcraft 2 which is unheard of in starcraft 1, that the players try to affect the opinion of the game designers to gain advantage.


I really do not know about those examples you mention, but seems like they would have to be played with different approach. If there is no maps that have those kind of open spaces or what you describe, the players will never come up with an answer even there might be one.

What comes to my mind, is that terran can use open spaces to put mines everywhere and move marines more freely. The banelings and zerglings come, the marines will run towards the mines. This is probably harder to do in closed corridors as the marines are trapped and the banelings can crush them more easily so it can also be said that closed corridors favour zerg as they want the opponent to have units in small area they can hit from different angles with no possible escape routes, as in trap them. This is often seen to happen and the opposing army get annihilated. In this situation the terran usually puts their units in dropship and escapes, and the zerg attacks them with muta.

Protoss seem to have strong splash damage so even they probably like that units are packed on small spaces.

Somehow i get the feeling that there are lot of something similar to propaganda behind what you write and not much of real issues, or something that could not be solved. Maybe some players do not like certain type of maps, or maybe those maps that are used indeed favour zerg and they being more intelligent than other players have invented a ruse to get everyone believe that open corridors favour zerg. Then they laugh with their cerebrates how simple other beings are.

Somehow it seems that its always zerg, all the talk of balance resolves around zerg. People here even say that brood war is imbalanced in favour of zerg which is clearly not the case. People have usually seen Terran as bit above other races, but not that much that it would be a problem or real imbalance.


When thinking of balance, win statistic cannot be seen as of use. The statistic are always biased in this type of setting as they are produced by different kind of players. If one race have the better players they show better results in statistic and if the balancing will be made on that reference it will be made imbalanced to balance the statistics as one race have the better players, thus making the game more imbalanced. If the game is balanced and one race have better players it should be seen in statistic with better win rate on that race.

So if statistic is something to use in reference there should also be a realistic statistics about skill level of each of those players who use those races because this is a factor behind those statistics. Still only one side of that statistic is used making biased information which is inaccurate. Using them assuming that every player that is producing those statistics is equal can be damaging for the whole purpose of balancing the game.

This is in my opinion something, that people who make game balance should not take to account any more than a side notion, not something to base their balancing against. It is a crooked scale.

So if we want to balance the game so that all races have 1/3 of win rate all the time, some of the races must be made better than others according how good the players are to achieve this.

This is something i have seen that people want to happen. It is also the leading thought about many balance discussions, so people are not discussing about the game balance, but of balance in win rates.

It is also strange that i have to tell people these things. All of these things are something like elementary school level and it is quite possible that i am telling these to people with far more education and social standings.


Checking those maps, first map Moon River i like. It is the same map with corridors but i like this map by small amount.

This map in this thread Overgrown, i think it looks nice too but follows the same pattern which was the thing i commented on that why all maps seem to have that certain pattern.

Pandemonium seem good too, i really like that one.

It seems like those are all good maps.

Caspian Gates i do not like, it seems to simplified and creating a certain type of strongholds for each players. Maybe thats the idea and is itself creative but this was the first map that i did not like by the first look of it but when looking it more it seem better than what the image that the first look of it gave to me.

Candy Fever surely have a palette i do not like. The map itself seems also confusing.

Depth Enterer and Fissure Desert seem almost like the same map with different graphics. Same goes for Forest Jump. Those are maps i do not like.

Hell Gates is interesting. I think there is something on this map that could be improved, the same layout whit different approach, maybe a larger expansion on the center would give more emphasis for fighting in there.

Jungle Tangle and Silky Ruins more of the same. Not good.

Hidden Resort i like. Those platforms in the middle add something to that map.

Rest in #2 more the same.


Heh creighton olsen rhyming actually decent.

Engines of War seem like good map. Its also refreshing. Fern Gully also but Engines of War seems like the better one.

Tetron seems something strange, dont really know what to make of it, seems like layout of some strange UMS map.


Engines of War on that small picture seems maybe the best map i have seen so far but maybe not, when taking closer looks its still maybe too linear. I like the middle and the platform in the middle, but the spawn positions follow the usual pattern i do not like. For example, what makes Lost Temple so good is that the natural expansion is kind of safe but still contested from the cliff, the third expansion is in the open and there is a large open space that still have environment to hide your units, having also island expansion possibility in the corners. It is better in many ways than any of those maps.

Similar setup for starcraft 2 would mean that only the third base is contested on the cliff and the fourth base would be in the open. The idea behind Lost Temple is still amazing, that all expansions have their unique flavor (one contested with a cliff, one in the open and one is island).

Still, some of those were nice looking maps and the ones that were different were not that good (?) but had good ideas.

Maybe someone could try to make better maps that are based on similar layouts that were given there.


I do want to create a map, but i cannot know how. I want to create an entire game type, where you can choose your rosters in the same way as protoss campaign before the game begins and use that roster on any given map. The mechanics already exist, it would just have to be utilized. If it already is, let me know so i will seek no further.