EPTDaedalus Point: A Lesson in Map Making - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
CutTheEnemy
Canada373 Posts
| ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
Heartland
Sweden24591 Posts
My point here being that Daedalus(1.0) isn't so out there. It just has one feature which is odd about it, the huge-ass natural ramp. Perhaps if it had some other features which would make it more outside of the regular main->natural->third layout, two gases, etc. we could have seen both a more balanced map and a map that would explore new facets of sc2 gameplay. For example, a rising lava field on the low ground might entirely prevent most early pool shenanigans if the lava rises during - say - regular 10-pool timings. Then the ramp might not be as much of an issue (I know there are Roach timings that are also tricky, but conceivably these can be dealt with differently and that might be super interesting). Or what if there were rocks on the natural? Or a center filled with rocks that all goes away after 15 minutes, but which in the early games makes you have to run around half the map? Or ledges on the side of the map leading from one natural to the other, like that Proleague map? My point here is that any of these ideas might be terrible in themselves. But Daedalus might just be a bit too standard with one non-standard feature in it. I've started thinking that there are just three maps in all of sc2 - Entombed Valley, Ohana and Whirlwind and that we just see variations of these basic map layouts. A bit problematic is that the article is a statement in support of conservatism when it comes to maps. Maybe the issue is too much conservatism and not too little. I agree with the general idea that maps that are so out there shouldn't be in WCS rotation and that the blizzard ladder system's relation to the WCS map pool is an issue. | ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
On February 15 2014 05:39 Pandain wrote: Ahhhh <3 nony Indeed, much #wub Nony ♥ | ||
|
m0ck
4194 Posts
| ||
|
Jornada
United States223 Posts
| ||
|
GoodSirTets
Canada200 Posts
| ||
|
Bango
United States106 Posts
| ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On February 15 2014 07:18 Heartland wrote: I think it's an interesting read and I think it has a few good points. However, couldn't we conceivably come to the other conclusion here - it's not weird enough? My point here being that Daedalus(1.0) isn't so out there. It just has one feature which is odd about it, the huge-ass natural ramp. Perhaps if it had some other features which would make it more outside of the regular main->natural->third layout, two gases, etc. we could have seen both a more balanced map and a map that would explore new facets of sc2 gameplay. For example, a rising lava field on the low ground might entirely prevent most early pool shenanigans if the lava rises during - say - regular 10-pool timings. Then the ramp might not be as much of an issue (I know there are Roach timings that are also tricky, but conceivably these can be dealt with differently and that might be super interesting). Or what if there were rocks on the natural? Or a center filled with rocks that all goes away after 15 minutes, but which in the early games makes you have to run around half the map? Or ledges on the side of the map leading from one natural to the other, like that Proleague map? My point here is that any of these ideas might be terrible in themselves. But Daedalus might just be a bit too standard with one non-standard feature in it. I've started thinking that there are just three maps in all of sc2 - Entombed Valley, Ohana and Whirlwind and that we just see variations of these basic map layouts. A bit problematic is that the article is a statement in support of conservatism when it comes to maps. Maybe the issue is too much conservatism and not too little. I agree with the general idea that maps that are so out there shouldn't be in WCS rotation and that the blizzard ladder system's relation to the WCS map pool is an issue. Maybe, but the more non-standard features you add, the more complicated balancing maps becomes. Even just two features (open natural and open middle+third) open a whole host of problems. Adding even more features makes the map even crazier and harder to balance - so again, you are in a situation where you can't force individual leagues to play these maps, and you need an even bigger sample size before judging wether the map is balanced or not. Again, imbalanced maps are fine in some circumstances, but the very top individual leagues when they can be the deciding factor in a series isn't one of them. The key is to find some middle ground between innovation and standard design to move the game forward. edit: Given the reasoning in this article, why was metalopolis acceptable in competitive play for so long. It likewise has a very small rush distance and a wide open natural Because when we played on Metal, the 3gate expands i mention in the write up were actually considered viable (and actually, THE best way to play). Also, on metal you could kind of forge expand by partially walling. Today a slow ling allin would just kill you, but back in the day we didn't know that. Also, close position metal sucked balls, everyone agreed on that but blizzard was too stubborn to change it for a long, long time. I think innovation will come from protoss players and this map will be playable and very fun! I enjoy more aggressive games, rather than passive ZvPs. Of course, this is a huge shift in the meta-game for protoss's which may be called unfair at first (as stated in the article). However when this shift occurs, zergs should be the ones lagging behind for a bit which will allow protoss's work to pay off (depending how long it takes for zergs to adapt). The map has already been changed to allow for easier walling, so we will not know wether the first version was balanced or not until a new map like it is properly introduced, studied and balanced. Also, we dont really know if a more aggressive (but not all-in) PvZ style is possible yet. We know for a fact that on WoL it wasn't viable (Dual Sight, Bel'Shir Beach and Crossfire are good examples of that). | ||
|
Heartland
Sweden24591 Posts
On February 15 2014 07:27 Teoita wrote: Maybe, but the more non-standard features you add, the more complicated balancing maps becomes. Even just two features (open natural and open middle+third) open a whole host of problems. Adding even more features makes the map even crazier and harder to balance - so again, you are in a situation where you can't force individual leagues to play these maps. The key is to find some middle ground between innovation and standard design to move the game forward. Hmm. Maybe. I can see how it's hard to spot the causality if you add more features. To be like "If there is feature X, gameplay Y" is stronger. And if there are multiple factors then it's harder to get. And of course, I am not advocating forcing too untested maps into bigger tournaments. I do, however, think some forcing is needed. Pro players are, as we know, a conservative lot who hate innovation. I don't think many of them will be happy with seeing non-standard maps. But back to my original point, I do think that the map layouts should be renewed radically to open up for new forms of gameplay. To take our favourite way to argue here on TL and compare sc2 maps with BW maps we do see a lot of different features and maps that diverge from each other. One question that we can raise is why there should be easily accessible 3rds just next to the natural and mains? In BW, thirds are often in another corner of the map. This is partly a balance issue vs Zerg (I believe, anyway). But things like that might be interesting to introduce into sc2. In this case, people might make the case that it would strengthen P because 2-base all-ins would be stronger, but with Zerg having a harder time reinforcing their third Protoss might not be forced into all-inning. Anyway, the particulars here are moot, my main point is that there should be some kind of renewal in the way we envision maps and that the article seems to suggest a very careful approach. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On February 15 2014 07:33 Heartland wrote: But back to my original point, I do think that the map layouts should be renewed radically to open up for new forms of gameplay. To take our favourite way to argue here on TL and compare sc2 maps with BW maps we do see a lot of different features and maps that diverge from each other. One question that we can raise is why there should be easily accessible 3rds just next to the natural and mains? In BW, thirds are often in another corner of the map. This is partly a balance issue vs Zerg (I believe, anyway). But things like that might be interesting to introduce into sc2. In this case, people might make the case that it would strengthen P because 2-base all-ins would be stronger, but with Zerg having a harder time reinforcing their third Protoss might not be forced into all-inning. Anyway, the particulars here are moot, my main point is that there should be some kind of renewal in the way we envision maps and that the article seems to suggest a very careful approach. This is interesting because it's starting to become more common in habitation station. Especially TvZ or PvZ it appears the players going against the zerg are taking the Gold as their natural more often because it's still the same size ramp compared to your natural. Now, if it was a normal base would they ever do that, probably not (although it would still be a reasonable 3rd) but it is interesting to see players expanding farther away just to grab that gold. I'd still like to try out a version of Habitation Station where it is a normal blue mineral base where the Golds are currently. Although at that point I don't see them ever getting taken besides from maybe terran, due to how easily harassable they are. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
Zergs taking another main as their third in ZvT has nothing to do with map design and more with the defensive power of lurkers, as well as how nydus works in bw (basically it allows zerg armies to travel between zerg bases and that's it). Just like sc2, in bw a map has to follow several features to be balanced. Indeed, kespa has made many edits to bw maps during bw seasons to make them more balanced. Regarding sc2, the reaction to an absolutely insane map pool isn't going to be some huge innovative ideas that change our understanding of the game forever within a few days, because at this point the game is actually extremely well mapped out. What is going to happen is simply more and more cheesy games. This is exactly what happened on Icarus, another extremely non standard map. Everyone just started allining the hell out of each other and the result was nothing but silly and fairly horrible games. Again, if you want to introduce non standard maps, you need to test them first, in as many meaningful ways as possible. Shoving silly maps down progamer's throats for the sake of it is not the way to develop a stable game. | ||
|
UberNuB
United States365 Posts
Saying you should be able to reliably with any standard build and take a 2nd/3rd is essentially saying, "Any Protoss should be able to turtle while they harass and build a death ball army." As a lower tier player, this is super frustrating having to rely on your Protoss player being caught off-guard to be able to attack into them. As an observer it just creates stale/boring games that lead up to one final battle. I would rather see wildly variable maps added into the map pool, and stop allowing players to veto any maps. We might see a much more varied game. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
Besides, i could make the same (silly) argument for Zerg not needing to take down rocks before taking a natural expansion, third and fourth base, "because it's silly that i have to put on pressure to keep him from droning up and overwhelming me". Also, PvZ right now is actually fairly balanced. It's Terran exsclusively that's struggling. Do not blame your playing in lower leagues (or well, anywhere below pro level at the very least) with balance. | ||
|
UberNuB
United States365 Posts
Saying completely dull to watch is probably the right wording. Why even have a map pool and not just play on the same map if we want/expect (essentially) the same strategies be viable for every map? | ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
The tricky issue isn't so much why Daedalus was bad but why radically different maps can't be good. The racial design imposed constraints on map design are far too extreme. Day[9] was asking a few months back for obviously imbalanced maps to shake things up, but you just straight up can't do that in SC2. Zerg wins if terrain is open, loses if it's closed. Protoss has to have a really close third or has to 2 base, natural ramp/position has to be right or blink+MSC kills Terran... Naturals need a narrow choke or Protoss can't expand, but not too narrow or zerg can't defend theirs. Counters need to be softer and the races need an option for each kind of terrain. But the current design philosophy seems to be the opposite, introduce a hard counter to any issue that appears. Band aid solutions (MSC queen range etc) have pretty much turned the game into no rush 15. All this shuts down anything that's much more than a paint job and a rotation of the same 3 maps. If patching is the only way the game will evolve it will eventually get stale and its not sustainable if Blizzard isn't making regular income from SC2. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
At the same time, the number of options that players have is relatively limited; for instance, in PvZ both Protoss and Zerg have essentially 4 different styles each, and it's one of the more varied matchups as far as army compositions go. It's also (arguably) not one of the most entertaining. On the other hand, in a standard TvZ of bio vs muta/ling/bling the compositions and builds are very, very rigid, but the games tend to be a whole lot more entertaining. I strongly believe that variety and entertainiment value of a matchup are pretty different and not necessarily related to each other (again, bio TvZ is a great example of that). @poster above me: not necessarily. For instance, the maps of the original TLMC (Cloud Kingdom and Ohana) greatly changed the way WoL was played and helped in understanding it fully. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
First we get TL strategy getting pro's impressions of Blizzard's balance changes (which aren't good impressions), now we get them explaining why Blizzard maps are trash. Way to go. Taking on the man. And nice work pointing out their inability to fix things so they end up just having to remove them (the Warhound... maps.. ect). | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On February 15 2014 08:12 mostevil wrote: So obviously broken map is broken? It's nicely written but feels a bit unnecessary. The tricky issue isn't so much why Daedalus was bad but why radically different maps can't be good. The racial design imposed constraints on map design are far too extreme. Day[9] was asking a few months back for obviously imbalanced maps to shake things up, but you just straight up can't do that in SC2. Zerg wins if terrain is open, loses if it's closed. Protoss has to have a really close third or has to 2 base, natural ramp/position has to be right or blink+MSC kills Terran... Naturals need a narrow choke or Protoss can't expand, but not too narrow or zerg can't defend theirs. Counters need to be softer and the races need an option for each kind of terrain. But the current design philosophy seems to be the opposite, introduce a hard counter to any issue that appears. Band aid solutions (MSC queen range etc) have pretty much turned the game into no rush 15. All this shuts down anything that's much more than a paint job and a rotation of the same 3 maps. If patching is the only way the game will evolve it will eventually get stale and its not sustainable if Blizzard isn't making regular income from SC2. Having radically different maps for just the sake of it is a bad idea. For example, I don't think you can ever get out of the basic layout of narrow entrance to the main and choke-able natural in SC2. It helps all the races to get into the game. If maps were completely radical, then we would have a long period of either cheesy games (as Teo says) or just downright bad games as everything we have learned so far about SC2 no longer applies within the context of that map and learning begins again. There may be some novelty value in that. But, I am doubtful whether that would be worth watching or playing for very long. I think having different maps means adding more features which allow for greater strategic and tactical variety (especially map specific). But, that does not mean that we should expect the game to be revolutionized either. Just better (hopefully). | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
This is really not an us vs Blizzard type thing. Their job is to make the game and the maps, ours is to produce quality content about it. The whole idea behind these last posts is, actually, that as a team in TL Strat we wanted to diversify our content from exclusively guides and build analysis, to produce something that's faster to write and can interest spectators that don't play the game or don't want to study new builds. edit: Having radically different maps for just the sake of it is a bad idea. For example, I don't think you can ever get out of the basic layout of narrow entrance to the main and choke-able natural in SC2 or bw It's important to point that out imo. | ||
| ||
