|
Hello.
So far it seems that pretty much everyone really like the big GSL maps - Tal´Darim Altar, Crevasse and Terminus Re.
As a result these maps have now been included in a lot of tournaments. However I believe we should have legitimate concerns about this trend to use those big maps in a map pool.
The main concern is that really big maps rule out a lot of builds and units that are viable on smaller maps (but in no way small) like Typhoon and Shakuras. This may not be evident just yet cause the maps are still new.
As a terran, going pure mech can much easier be exploited by his opponent as there is much more space to move around.
A huge protoss ball can also be dodged more easy.
Personally I am a zerg player and I am afraid that the only viable build vs any opponent will be ling/bling/muta. As I see it mutas are an absolute MUST HAVE on these big maps. No infestor play. No roach/hydra combo as they move too slow and need to be clumped up.
My question is: Do we really need these big maps to get good games and a balanced gameplay?
I dont think we do. In fact I think, that because the build options are more limited, we will get less entertaining games than we currently have on maps like XNC, Shakuras and Meta. I would like to add Backwater Gulch, Typhoon Peaks and Shattered Temple but I just havnt seen any pro games on them, which is a shame as I think they are great maps.
TL;DR - The big GSL maps restrict the gameplay and force the players to chose from just a few viable builds.
|
I think both the ladder as well as a tournament should feature small, medium-sized and big maps. Each size renders some strategies favourable.
A player should not rely on one strategy per race match-up, because tournaments would be boring.
Other races are jealous about our speedy muta force with a bouncing attack. I try to embrace it instead of thinking "oh no, I cannot use infestors to kill the big terran bio attack ball". I just need to keep him busy while I expand and flood him with banelings 
|
I think we need to wait & observe some more games on these maps as the metagame changes. I play terran and I am still a bit apprehensive about big maps, because terran is the slowest race and cannot easily reinforce on huge maps.
However, I have seen some amazing terran play in the GSL on huge maps that really exploits the use of dropships/banshees/etc. and terran's defensive ability to work wonders against the other races. I also think that large, slow armies still have a place in the game with bigger maps, as although it's easier to dodge them, it's also easier for the massing player to defend early rushes and secure an economic foothold.
In the end we will have to see how the game develops. It could be that SC2 was not meant to be played on bigger maps, but bigger maps might change the game for the better.
|
I think it just brings a whole new aspect to the game. You need to have a much better multitasking in the late game on these huge maps, with drops and nydus and whatever occuring all over the map ! It makes it certainly must more interesting for the viewer imo and brings back a little bit of the good old BW feeling.
|
On March 29 2011 21:54 Thall wrote:
I think it just brings a whole new aspect to the game. You need to have a much better multitasking in the late game on these huge maps, with drops and nydus and whatever occuring all over the map ! It makes it certainly must more interesting for the viewer imo and brings back a little bit of the good old BW feeling.
I disagree. All this multitasking is also needed on smaller maps and we see it constantly allready. Besides SC2 is not BW and what worked in BW may not work in SC2.
|
Well if blizzard is going to insist on having every expo being 8 minerals + 2 gas then I don't really want to see the GSL maps on ladder. Not without a lot of layout changes. Taldarim altar is just ridiculously easy in pvz due to the easy fast 3 bases.
|
I feel like these gsl maps are just opening the doors for a whole new set of strategies based on FE and drops and will force even slower races to push ideas of mobility.. it's quite exciting
|
On March 29 2011 22:14 Zachatron wrote:
I feel like these gsl maps are just opening the doors for a whole new set of strategies based on FE and drops and will force even slower races to push ideas of mobility.. it's quite exciting
This.
You shouldn't think of the new big maps as restricting gameplay. You should think of the new big maps as a chance for different and unique strategies to be developed and refined.
|
There is almost no multitasking required in making 2 base timing attacks compared to securing and fighting for the 3rd and 4th base in a long, drawn out macro game.
Bigger maps make macro and multitasking more important while micro and decision making are still as important as ever. Bigger maps increase the skill required to produce results and greate a more competitive game with more room to improve.
You claim that big maps reduce the number of strategies you can pull off and I say is is absolutely false. On big maps, with more room to expand, and more mineral lines to secure, you don't always need play the same style as on smaller maps. Defensive macro play will be a lot stronger, and more rewarding. The new infestor builds popping up as a result of patch 1.3 in ZvT is a good example. Using the infestors, you can easily secure more expansions by denying all aggression and getting ahead in upgrades and tech. This is an example of the new types of strategies that become available only on big maps. You don't always need to go mutalisks as Zerg to do well, many other units have great uses on big maps. I personally feel the bigger the maps, the more unit diversity we're seeing. On small tightly packed maps, 2 or 3 base timing attacks dominate so much the best strategy will always be to get the most cost effective army faster than your opponent and deciding the game.
If players figure out how to dodge the big scary balls of mech armies and protoss deathballs, then isn't that in itself a contradiction of your own statement? That is a new strategy devised to fight off the big scary pushes, and are only available on big maps because of the amount of space available. This forces meching player to put more effort into controlling the map and deciding where the battle is fought. This will bring out new ways of thinking strategy.
If the game is more balanced or not, on the big maps, I don't know. But the game should be balanced around big maps and long games, not short maps and short games based on timing attacks. Longer and bigger maps, always require more skill to play, and thus makes for better competition. The focus of balancing a game should be to make skill the factor that determines who wins and who doesnt.
|
On March 29 2011 22:13 flodeskum wrote:
Well if blizzard is going to insist on having every expo being 8 minerals + 2 gas then I don't really want to see the GSL maps on ladder. Not without a lot of layout changes. Taldarim altar is just ridiculously easy in pvz due to the easy fast 3 bases.
i really agree with this. Granted, I'm only plat z, but i feel like the 3 bases basically behind one choke (Tal Darim is a LOT better than terminus RE in that regard), but i just seem to struggle.
That's part of the beauty of GSL maps, the fact that not EVERY SINGLE BASE has 8 mineral patches and 2 gas. I'd like to see a few....less rich expos
|
I think the distribution is a little too big-map heavy right now. While larger maps certainly allow for the longer games where full-term strategies can come into play, there's something to be said for early game rushes.
On larger maps, the only heavy early game rushes that seem to work well are warp gates, because they cut out the middle distance so easily. While I'm not necessarily pro-cheese, I think it's important for gameplay, not map pool, to render them beatable. Because of that, I'd like to see maybe one or two of the 4-player maps (Terminus and Tal'Darim seem pretty duplicative anyway) replaced by 2-player maps, or perhaps by 4-player maps on the scale of Metalopolis.
tl;dr - there's something to be said for maps with short rush distances.
|
On March 29 2011 22:13 flodeskum wrote:
Well if blizzard is going to insist on having every expo being 8 minerals + 2 gas then I don't really want to see the GSL maps on ladder. Not without a lot of layout changes. Taldarim altar is just ridiculously easy in pvz due to the easy fast 3 bases.
On that map, any good zerg will have 5-6 bases by the time you have 3.
|
people complaining about these maps need to spend more time playing instead of theorying.
ive had the best games of sc2 ive ever played on the new maps. GSL games more exciting to watch
|
On March 29 2011 23:09 optical630 wrote:
people complaining about these maps need to spend more time playing instead of theorying.
ive had the best games of sc2 ive ever played on the new maps. GSL games more exciting to watch
How do you deal with the huge number of locations to scout for proxy gates/barracks on Tal'Darim?
|
On March 29 2011 22:39 mnck wrote:
There is almost no multitasking required in making 2 base timing attacks compared to securing and fighting for the 3rd and 4th base in a long, drawn out macro game.
Bigger maps make macro and multitasking more important while micro and decision making are still as important as ever. Bigger maps increase the skill required to produce results and greate a more competitive game with more room to improve.
You claim that big maps reduce the number of strategies you can pull off and I say is is absolutely false. On big maps, with more room to expand, and more mineral lines to secure, you don't always need play the same style as on smaller maps. Defensive macro play will be a lot stronger, and more rewarding. The new infestor builds popping up as a result of patch 1.3 in ZvT is a good example. Using the infestors, you can easily secure more expansions by denying all aggression and getting ahead in upgrades and tech. This is an example of the new types of strategies that become available only on big maps. You don't always need to go mutalisks as Zerg to do well, many other units have great uses on big maps. I personally feel the bigger the maps, the more unit diversity we're seeing. On small tightly packed maps, 2 or 3 base timing attacks dominate so much the best strategy will always be to get the most cost effective army faster than your opponent and deciding the game.
If players figure out how to dodge the big scary balls of mech armies and protoss deathballs, then isn't that in itself a contradiction of your own statement? That is a new strategy devised to fight off the big scary pushes, and are only available on big maps because of the amount of space available. This forces meching player to put more effort into controlling the map and deciding where the battle is fought. This will bring out new ways of thinking strategy.
If the game is more balanced or not, on the big maps, I don't know. But the game should be balanced around big maps and long games, not short maps and short games based on timing attacks. Longer and bigger maps, always require more skill to play, and thus makes for better competition. The focus of balancing a game should be to make skill the factor that determines who wins and who doesnt.
The problem on huge maps is that a 2 base timing attack will hardly be viable anymore. Neither will an early pool or even a 14 pool, 14 gas visa versa. Only viable zerg opener is hatch first.
Mutas are insanely good compared to roach/hydra or infestors cause of the mobility they bring to the table.
I am not arguing in favor of small maps like DQ or Slag Pits but imo maps dont have to be bigger than Typhoon or Shakuras to display the full arsenal of builds and strategies that every race has to offer without compromising timing attacks an early harras.
|
Well I'm starting to get bored of playing zerg. It's the same bling muta fast expand build in every game. This might be caused by the reasons posted in the op.
|
Imo, there is a direct relationship between map size and general difficulty.
Elaboration
(1) Every game has an opener, and early game.
(2) The vast majority of your games have a mid-game. The game is often won or lost in this stage of play.
(3) You will have a decent amount of end-game scenarios.
(4) Extreme late-game scenarios are rare.
I did not think Blizzard would ever add the super-sized GSL maps to the ladder pool because of their inherit difficulty level. The bigger the map the more likely it is that mid game will transition into end game and even extreme late game scenarios.
Can you imagine Bronze and Silver level players duking it out on Tal-Darim Alter? Wow. That sucks for them pretty hard.
As the maps get bigger, and bigger, the harder the game gets. But, is there a certain point where tactics and strategies become rewarded less because of the map size in 1v1 matches? It almost feels like the maps could potentially get to the point where they are too big for 1v1. It is conceivable to have multiple mains, ultra-high econ, and to have matches where neither of you can win (read: kill each other) for a long, long time.
I'm not saying this is "bad" yet, but ultra-huge maps with 16 expos just seems a little much for 1v1. Do we really want every 1v1 on these maps to be 60+ minutes long? Do we really want three or four 200/200 clashes?
I don't know whether they are good or bad yet. I'm on the fence. I see potential for both arguments. I was and am under the impression that there is a size-threshold for maps in this game in its current incarnation. Travel time, supply lines, total resources; all of these things should be relative to in-game timings.
Examples (exaggerated for emphasis)
+ Show Spoiler +(a) The spine crawler has a build time so that in many scenarios you can get up some defensive spines if you see a push moving out. On these ultra huge maps you can build a hatch, a queen, drone for a bit, then throw down some spines and they will be done by the time the army actually reaches your base.
(b) On XC the defender can squeeze an extra round of units out by the time it takes the offender to walk across the map. The an extra round pops out during the fight, if there is an engagement. On these ultra huge maps the defender's army is twice as big as yours by the time you get there and they have a Nexus :/
(c) 2 rax used to punish a 15h. Now, if you 2rax by the time you get there there are three hatches, fully droned, and baneling speed is done.
Conclusion
+ Show Spoiler +I don't know whether I'm for or against the trend towards super huge maps. I think as long as Blizzard and the tournament scene retains maps of all sizes and doesn't allow for too many of these huge maps we will be fine. But if the map pool is eventually all GSL-sized maps I think that will be bad for the game.
I also think as expansions come out and new mechanics are entered into the game they should directly address the new map sizes. I also think we need to be mindful that it is possible that some maps are simply 'too big' and some are 'too small.'
|
Reading mnck's post made me change my mind about big maps... As a terran player, my mech doom pushes are a backbone of my play, and I hated the new big maps for the simple fact that I'd have to multitask more for a 3rd/4th base instead of simply killing them after massing up on 2 bases on the medium/smaller maps.... I felt that the big maps were ONLY there for the QQ'ing zergies.
But as mnck says,
On March 29 2011 22:39 mnck wrote:
Bigger maps make macro and multitasking more important while micro and decision making are still as important as ever. Bigger maps increase the skill required to produce results and greate a more competitive game with more room to improve.
So if you look at it that way, it's kind of a no brainer. More room for skill? yes. More competition? Yes plz. Now, to practice Tal'darim altar... lol
|
On March 29 2011 22:37 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 22:14 Zachatron wrote:
I feel like these gsl maps are just opening the doors for a whole new set of strategies based on FE and drops and will force even slower races to push ideas of mobility.. it's quite exciting This. You shouldn't think of the new big maps as restricting gameplay. You should think of the new big maps as a chance for different and unique strategies to be developed and refined.
exactly
and you dont have to go muta on big maps...just think of ways you want to play.
|
On March 29 2011 23:15 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 22:39 mnck wrote:
There is almost no multitasking required in making 2 base timing attacks compared to securing and fighting for the 3rd and 4th base in a long, drawn out macro game.
Bigger maps make macro and multitasking more important while micro and decision making are still as important as ever. Bigger maps increase the skill required to produce results and greate a more competitive game with more room to improve.
You claim that big maps reduce the number of strategies you can pull off and I say is is absolutely false. On big maps, with more room to expand, and more mineral lines to secure, you don't always need play the same style as on smaller maps. Defensive macro play will be a lot stronger, and more rewarding. The new infestor builds popping up as a result of patch 1.3 in ZvT is a good example. Using the infestors, you can easily secure more expansions by denying all aggression and getting ahead in upgrades and tech. This is an example of the new types of strategies that become available only on big maps. You don't always need to go mutalisks as Zerg to do well, many other units have great uses on big maps. I personally feel the bigger the maps, the more unit diversity we're seeing. On small tightly packed maps, 2 or 3 base timing attacks dominate so much the best strategy will always be to get the most cost effective army faster than your opponent and deciding the game.
If players figure out how to dodge the big scary balls of mech armies and protoss deathballs, then isn't that in itself a contradiction of your own statement? That is a new strategy devised to fight off the big scary pushes, and are only available on big maps because of the amount of space available. This forces meching player to put more effort into controlling the map and deciding where the battle is fought. This will bring out new ways of thinking strategy.
If the game is more balanced or not, on the big maps, I don't know. But the game should be balanced around big maps and long games, not short maps and short games based on timing attacks. Longer and bigger maps, always require more skill to play, and thus makes for better competition. The focus of balancing a game should be to make skill the factor that determines who wins and who doesnt.
The problem on huge maps is that a 2 base timing attack will hardly be viable anymore. Neither will an early pool or even a 14 pool, 14 gas visa versa. Only viable zerg opener is hatch first. Mutas are insanely good compared to roach/hydra or infestors cause of the mobility they bring to the table. I am not arguing in favor of small maps like DQ or Slag Pits but imo maps dont have to be bigger than Typhoon or Shakuras to display the full arsenal of builds and strategies that every race has to offer without compromising timing attacks an early harras.
thats simply not true. early pool builds (10 or something) will be viable because people favor FE on big maps. 14 gas 14 pool is also viable you just have to play it out differently than a hatch first. with early speedlings you are in total control of the map and you can decide to put pressure on while the enemy does not know what you are up to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
