Blizzard-made maps have been heavily criticized since the start of the WoL beta, and with good reason. The common element they all share is that they tend to be polarized in their features: they feature incredibly hard or easy to take expansions, and rush distances that are often too long or too short.
This has a profound effect on how the game is played at the top level. Every matchup imposes specific constraints on map design, so the most extreme maps also tend to be the most imbalanced. All competitive maps need to roughly follow these constraints to be considered fair and balanced.
The two most important to keep in mind -- and the ones that this article focus on -- are the constraints placed on map design by PvZ. This matchup requires an easily walled natural to allow a Protoss player to fast expand, as well as a somewhat closed off third base that can be defended with forcefields. While the second condition is somewhat less important with the introduction of HotS, it is still relevant enough in today's metagame and needs to be considered when designing a map meant for competitive StarCraft 2. There are many maps that have broken these constraints: Dual Sight, Crossfire, and early versions of Bel'shir Beach.
The latest map to defy these constraints was, of course, the first version of Daedalus. Its original version went against both these rules, with an extremely wide open third as well as an extremely vulnerable natural; so vulnerable, in fact, that FFE isn't viable and modern gateway-based builds need several adjustments to hold a Nexus. No natural expansion has been this hard to defend since the days of Crossifre and the early versions of Bel'Shir Beach. Neither of these problems are helped by the extremely short rush distance. Similiarly to Bel'Shir Beach, changes have recently been made to the map in order to make it less miserable for Protoss.
Daedalus version 1.0 was heavily criticized by both the community and pro players. Many spectators, commentators, and pros had asked for its immediate removal from the tournament and ladder pools.
This article will analyze the games played on the first version of this map, to figure out if the complaints were valid and the map really did require the ramp changes to be made. The sample size of games is extremely small, but the way the games were played shows interesting trends. Only GSL code A games were considered in this analysis, as these are supposedly the highest level games played on it. On Daedalus version 1.0 Zerg is 8-3 in PvZ.
Openings
Let's start with the early game. In Code A Protoss players either used outdated and overly safe builds that left them in terrible positions heading in the midgame, or extremely cheesy openings. This was because the standard Mothership Core expand appeared to be unplayable on this map and FFE was absolutely out of the question.
As a result, the most popular non-cheesy builds were 2010-style three gate expands. These builds died years ago because they are incredibly uneconomical, while being unable to put any kind of meaningful pressure on the Zerg. Other variations include one gate tech into an expand, which similarly delays the natural nexus for too long, while also being susceptible to all the early zergling speed builds that are so popular on this map. Speedling builds are a fairly minor investment on the Zerg's side when compared to the inefficient Protoss builds, which results in protoss players being farther behind than on the average modern map.
Simply looking at the games played confirms this scenario. Here is some brief analysis:
Seed vs Rogue, Seed vs Pet, Paralyze vs Life: All these games feature a Zerg player who opts for early game zergling or roach/ling pressure and ends up ahead, despite doing no damage, because the Protoss is forced into an overly defensive build and/or position. This huge economic advantage escalates much faster than in an average PvZ, and the Protoss easily gets overwhelmed.
Super vs Solar game 1, Myungsik vs Symbol: In these games, the Zerg doesn't pressure but the Protoss is still forced into overly safe builds that can't put on any pressure, tech quickly enough, or expand quickly enough to keep up with the Zerg.
sOs vs Shine: This game is the only one out of the entire sample in which the Protoss survives the huge deficit taken in the early game, and eventually sOs is able to win in the long run.
The extreme forms of cheese used by Protoss are below. These builds are easily scouted and stopped especially when they are so predictable. As a result PvZ one base builds haven't been viable since around early 2011; this option is not a factor in modern top level play:
Super vs Solar game 2, Panic vs Roro: The Protoss tries a proxy that gets immediately scouted. Everything else after it this is irrelevant.
Yonghwa vs Leenock: This game features several serious mistakes by Leenock. Despite having a ling burrowed at Yonghwa's natural, preventing him from expanding and forcing him into a one base all in, Leenock is still caught without both detection and units by a fairly slow DT rush: the first warp in occurs around seven minutes. This game is the biggest anomaly thus far; a player of Leenock's caliber will never lose in this way more than once.
Trust vs Symbol, Ruin vs Sleep: In both these games, the Protoss tries to block the zerg's ramp with a forge/gateway/pylon wall; this is usually fairly successful, but it's obvious that such builds can't be considered the standard by which to judge a map.
Midgame
Analyzing these games also brings up interesting trends in the midgame.
Zergs generally opt to invest in Lair tech armies to utilize the wide spaces of the map to their advantage while Protoss players are tending towards unsafe, tricky, or outdated builds. Unsafe robo builds, old stargate-based all-ins, and fake thirds have all been used: standard macro styles are much more rare.
This results in the supposed Zerg advantage appearing stronger than it is: Protoss players are either attacking into roach/hydra with sub optimal compositions and timings -- like seven gate void ray all-ins as a followup to overly safe openings -- or trying tech heavy builds that get busted while taking a third by the same roach-hydra builds. In some games, the Zerg early game advantages escalate so quickly that the roach/hydra army can kill the Protoss on two bases, before he can even consider taking a third.
Protoss players played like they were forced into playing extremely risky styles, like Colossus builds that skip stargate tech in order to get as many ground units as possible. The result of these high-variance builds is an extreme vulnerability to the tech switches which are so prevalent in HotS ZvP.
Analysis
The PvZ balance discussions about any map should center around three points:
Can the Protoss fast expand safely and reliably with a standard build? Can he take a third safely and reliably with a standard build? If the answer to the first and second questions are no, are the necessary adjustments reasonable? Is it fair to ask a race to reinvent every build used in a matchup, exclusively for a single map?
The third point is the most important and overlooked. It may, however, have been the saving grace for Daedalus Point. The few games played show that the Protoss hadn't been able to develop good enough builds to play out an even game. This might be due to a large number of factors that have nothing to do with the map: time to prepare (the map was a very recent addition to the pool), inefficient or inconclusive practice ("I didn't find a way to expand in practice, so I'm just going to proxy gates and hope for the best"). Again, the key issue of the map isn't exactly "are standard builds not viable?"; but rather, "does this map force such a change in standard builds and styles that the end result is unfair for one side?"
Developing an even slightly safer opening, for example, would have deep impact on the map's metagame: Zergs would have tried overly aggressive builds, but the Protoss players' adjustments may have been enough to hold those aggressive builds and give them the edge. In this scenario, the openness of the map has actually given the advantage to the Protoss side. We never saw a fully standard game on this version of the map, but it's very possible that such a build might exist. If it does, then the Zergs would stop using aggressive openings, causing the Protoss to play greedier, and so on. Eventually, the early game would settle around a smaller number of builds, and the variance in the games played would decrease to something more stable. Of course, it's also possible that the map was just imbalanced and the games on it would never have been stable, as was the case with Crossfire.
The same considerations are valid for the midgame builds. Protoss has essentially three to four stable midgame styles in HotS:
Stargate/robo into either phoenix/colossus/blink stalker or colossus/void ray
Stargate into chargelot/templar; and
Three base blink builds (which are the least used among these).
When considering Daedalus, blink styles are particularly interesting and relevant, as they might be the ones that best fit the map. The idea behind them is that by having a huge amount of sentries and blink stalkers in the midgame, defending a third base against many kinds of roach/hydra/ling attacks is somewhat easier than with more tech based builds.
The mobility and power of blink stalkers also allows the Protoss to hit strong three base timings against any kind of zerg tech switch or mutalisk rush. On paper, this looks like the perfect style to play on a map like Daedalus; however, it's less popular than the others since it's not nearly as well mapped out (and arguably trickier and harder to pull off). If it is possible for Protoss to go blink every game on the old Daedalus -- and have a 50% win rate with it -- then the map can be considered balanced. Zerg styles then have to develop to counter this new Protoss build and so on. A good example of a map that played out and evolved like this is Entombed Valley: Protoss players tried to maximize their pre-hive timings so far and cut enough corners that low tech roach heavy builds suddenly became efficient once again. Note, however, that the map itself was always considered reasonably fair and balanced.
Conclusion
The sample size of games was extremely small, but it appears that the initial version of Daedalus Point might truly have been more unfair than is necessary for the ZvP matchup. In the process of developing maps and advancing the game, it's always important to remember that testing extreme maps should not be done in individual premier leagues like GSL and WCS. There have been crazier, more imbalanced maps before in StarCraft 2 -- such as Arkanoid or New Polaris Rhapsody -- but instead of being forced into the top individual league shortly before the start of a new season, they were played in team leagues and/or minor tournaments first. Team leagues like Proleague in particular allow the development of a wider sample size to test maps out, while giving players and teams more time to study the map and avoid an imbalanced matchup/map combination: we can cite Arkanoid here once again.
If Daedalus Point was in the Proleague map pool, there wouldn't have been complaints. There would be no ZvPs played on it until it was figured out to the point where it could be safe to send a Protoss out onto it. This did not happen, and players were asking for its immediate retirement before it could be fully understood. Instead of its retirement, Blizzard decided to change the ramp to be close to the standard, and Protoss now can (somewhat) easily wall their naturals.
Only time would have told if this map really was as imbalanced as it seemed, but one thing is certain: innovative and extreme maps need a long time to be fully understood and can help immensely in the development of the game across all matchups. The testing required for this development and understanding, however, is immense and forcing such a map into the pool of most premier tournaments so early on in its lifetime is a huge mistake. That said, removing it instead of changing it did remove some imbalances, but also limited the potential developments and tweaks to how the game is meant to be played that we haven't found out yet.
The TeamLiquid Strategy Team extends a special thanks to Nony, for engaging us in discussion and providing a strong counter point to the assumption that the original version of Daedelus was unequivocally terrible, and that it could lead to developments in the ZvP metagame. Without his sober second thought, much of this article may not have been written nor considered.
On February 15 2014 05:42 Teoita wrote: You guys have no idea. I Pm'd him to get a few brief thoughts on the map and he sent me a freaking wall of awesomeness.
It was a baller wall. Still informs the builds I'm messing with now on the map
You pretend Daedalus was a mistake, but it is the only reason Code S isn't 24 Protoss right now.
Praise to Daedalus and the visionary mapmaker who saved Code A. Well, half-saved Code A. I'm not sure if maps will be enough to save Terran from the wrath of David Kim.
Incredible article, with special contributions to my fav toss of all time Nony! Just an idea, maybe it would be good to have a pic of the map at the top?
I would have liked to see mention specifically of the particular type of imbalance that results when one race is made especially vulnerable at certain timings because of map features. In this case, the unwallable natural gives zerg any number of great early game aggressive options that protoss normally doesn't have to deal with. Or the wide open 3rd can be attacked later. The mere threat of these plays forces protoss to either gamble or fall behind by playing safe. The zerg doesn't actually have to do anything special or different at all. It is only the use of the map causing the disadvantage. You sort of allude to this but it isn't fully stated, and I think it bears explicit explanation.
This results in the supposed Zerg advantage appearing stronger than it is.
The flip side of this is that when the zerg player does go for aggression to make use of the map, they may be playing into a situation where they lose edge they could have had, if the protoss is playing honest and is in a state to defend well. It should be noted that this might result in decreased advantage in that instance, but it doesn't represent a measure of whether zerg vs protoss as a matchup on the given map has an advantaged side or not.
Notwithstanding, I'm really pleased to see TL analysis specifically about maps; can't have enough of this!
And of course the point is very well made that there should be better intentionally and more tolerance for using "imbalanced" maps that can change the way the game is played.
On February 15 2014 05:56 EatThePath wrote: I would have liked to see mention specifically of the particular type of imbalance that results when one race is made especially vulnerable at certain timings because of map features. In this case, the unwallable natural gives zerg any number of great early game aggressive options that protoss normally doesn't have to deal with. Or the wide open 3rd can be attacked later. The mere threat of these plays forces protoss to either gamble or fall behind by playing safe. The zerg doesn't actually have to do anything special or different at all. It is only the use of the map causing the disadvantage. You sort of allude to this but it isn't fully stated, and I think it bears explicit explanation.
This results in the supposed Zerg advantage appearing stronger than it is.
The flip side of this is that when the zerg player does go for aggression to make use of the map, they may be playing into a situation where they lose edge they could have had, if the protoss is playing honest and is in a state to defend well. It should be noted that this might result in decreased advantage in that instance, but it doesn't represent a measure of whether zerg vs protoss as a matchup on the given map has an advantaged side or not.
Notwithstanding, I'm really pleased to see TL analysis specifically about maps; can't have enough of this!
And of course the point is very well made that there should be better intentionally and more tolerance for using "imbalanced" maps that can change the way the game is played.
Good points. The thing is, sometimes on certain maps you can't hold a third, period. For example, holding a third base in WoL vs a roach maxing Zerg on Dual Sight was actually impossible.
For this article i decided to focus on the map constraint side of things (and how the percieved imbalanced made protoss players take crazy risks) rather than the metagame side, because the map isn't developed enough to actually posses a stable metagame yet.
On February 15 2014 05:56 EatThePath wrote: I would have liked to see mention specifically of the particular type of imbalance that results when one race is made especially vulnerable at certain timings because of map features. In this case, the unwallable natural gives zerg any number of great early game aggressive options that protoss normally doesn't have to deal with. Or the wide open 3rd can be attacked later. The mere threat of these plays forces protoss to either gamble or fall behind by playing safe. The zerg doesn't actually have to do anything special or different at all. It is only the use of the map causing the disadvantage. You sort of allude to this but it isn't fully stated, and I think it bears explicit explanation.
This results in the supposed Zerg advantage appearing stronger than it is.
The flip side of this is that when the zerg player does go for aggression to make use of the map, they may be playing into a situation where they lose edge they could have had, if the protoss is playing honest and is in a state to defend well. It should be noted that this might result in decreased advantage in that instance, but it doesn't represent a measure of whether zerg vs protoss as a matchup on the given map has an advantaged side or not.
Notwithstanding, I'm really pleased to see TL analysis specifically about maps; can't have enough of this!
And of course the point is very well made that there should be better intentionally and more tolerance for using "imbalanced" maps that can change the way the game is played.
Good points. The thing is, sometimes on certain maps you can't hold a third, period. For example, holding a third base in WoL vs a roach maxing Zerg on Dual Sight was actually impossible.
For this article i decided to focus on the map constraint side of things (and how the percieved imbalanced made protoss players take crazy risks) rather than the metagame side, because the map isn't developed enough to actually posses a stable metagame yet.
Yeah, it becomes a much larger discussion once you include metagame possibilities.
Thought provoking read, TL team. Thanks. Thanks to Nony too for his invaluable input. Working on the map in the right way could also have meant improving it differently rather than just reducing the ramp (e.g. circular attack path through the middle?).
I love the idea of the article and I think you should concider making a map analysis thread like this to other maps. I love mapmaking in general, it looks like some sort of art.
Maybe I missed it, but if not, could you guys add a picture or at least a link to a picture of the original daedalus? Sure I could look it up, but it would make the analysis much simpler (for everyone reading) to follow along with if there was a map picture in this post.
Very good article though. I really like the "rethinking the standard" angle. It always frustrated me that people consider a map shit if they cant do the same 2 builds on it. Creative thinking++. Thanks TL Strat!
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.
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
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
Bw is a different case, and it does have several map constraints as well (natural layouts to allow for muta harassment, the abiltiy for protoss to fast expand, etc etc). 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.
I'm no Nony, but my personal thoughts are taking a "free" 2nd and 3rd as Protoss is pretty ridiculous and the cause of much of the current imbalanced state of the game.
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.
That is really not how the game works. Again, the way every asymetrical RTS works is through constraints. If we went back to playing on Crossfire, Zerg would literally win every game again for example.
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.
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.
The same strategies are not viable on any map, and if you watched carefully you'd note that every progamer prefers certain builds/styles on certain maps, often makes adjustments to those same styles on different maps, and most importantly uses different game plans regarding what, where, when and why to attack, defend and expand over the whole game.
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.
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).
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).
This really isn't the point, although, i'm not going to lie, i was just going to bash the shit out of Daedalus before Nony talked some sense into me. I'm actually truly interested in the possiblity of crazy ass maps in Proleague format, just to test them and see how they play out.
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
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.
No, you are right. I made the same point in another thread a while ago after actually looking at recent BW maps.
Without a stable basic layout which works for all 3 races, a map is not playable in any meaningful way.
On February 15 2014 08:32 Teoita wrote: This really isn't the point, although, i'm not going to lie, i was just going to bash the shit out of Daedalus before Nony talked some sense into me. I'm actually truly interested in the possiblity of crazy ass maps in Proleague format, just to test them and see how they play out. 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.
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.
There is no reason for this to be particularly true, especially with the new extension mods. Defining either Blizz's or 'the communities' role in this way is self-limiting.
By "we" i meant the TL Strategy team (and really the sc2 coverage team in general); we damn sure aren't in a position to be putting out patches, let alone mods or entire games, not the entire community (because obviously, that would mean the map making community has no right to exist which is dumb right?).
On February 15 2014 09:03 Teoita wrote: By "we" i meant the TL Strategy team (and really the sc2 coverage team in general); we damn sure aren't in a position to be putting out patches, let alone mods or entire games, not the entire community (because obviously, that would mean the map making community has no right to exist which is dumb right?).
On February 15 2014 08:32 Teoita wrote: This really isn't the point, although, i'm not going to lie, i was just going to bash the shit out of Daedalus before Nony talked some sense into me. I'm actually truly interested in the possiblity of crazy ass maps in Proleague format, just to test them and see how they play out. 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.
There is no reason for this to be particularly true, especially with the new extension mods. Defining either Blizz's or 'the communities' role in this way is self-limiting.
Agreed. It's also a very narrow interpretation of what I was saying. I'm not talking about radically different, but more than simply aesthetically different. Currently the only things you can really safely play with in map design are beyond the third base, which is more than enough to turtle to max off. Incidentally from my reading you pretty much do bash the shit out of it, but in a well reasoned fashion. Rightly so in this case, its very hard to make solid counterpoints to the map doesn't work.
This is great guys, would love to see more of this in the future. And of course thanks to NoNy who is always willing to discuss whatever is brought to his attention, and almost always surprises everyone with the way he looks at things! <3 NoNy
One of the major points people were trying to make about this map is, that since it is so different and trying to drastically change the standard play in a matchup like PvZ, that designated time to test, and study how the results of the play were going was absolutely necessary before throwing it into a map pool of a tournament like Code A, especially where there were no vetoes available. 1 week of ladder time is nowhere near enough time for people to figure out a map like this. And it's really a shame due to the high stakes of the tournament and the players careers riding on it.
Lately the staff has posted a lot of awesomeness, between the pro impressions regarding the patch and this analysis on a map. I think that by far this is the most correct approach to the current sc2 problems, critical analysis provided by data but without the usual obvious bias that somehow invalidates even valid points.
If there's a way to reach Blizzard it's this one. Great job
I suggest for you in the future to let the mapmakers stormbrain about maps and such and then post an article: it would be a good way to highlight what's probably the most ignored problem of the game. The mapmaking threads don't get much recognition, sadly...
Is there any intent to analyze the map or any other map for a different matchup? I like that you did this for Daedalus but it's not like ZvP was the only problem matchup on this map. According to TLPD zerg had a 75% win rate (6-2 small sample size but still ~70% win rate for zerg through all tournaments although it includes some foreigner vs korean matches) vs Terran on this map too in the GSL. Would you just attribute it to the same circumstances?
Don't worry guys, all you have to do is get on Blizzard's ass about putting our maps on ladder - the good maps. They don't all have to be mine, either :p
Maybe the terran are bad in your opinion. I never said the map was the problem. I just asked if they were going to analyze it in another matchup besides just PvZ especially because numbers indicate that this may not be the only problem matchup on the map. I don't think my reasoning was unfounded.
Great analysis and insight into the must-haves of a balanced map. Daedalus 1.0 really was a terribly imbalanced map; glad it got the fix it needed in PvZ.
On February 15 2014 10:19 Shellshock wrote: Is there any intent to analyze the map or any other map for a different matchup? I like that you did this for Daedalus but it's not like ZvP was the only problem matchup on this map. According to TLPD zerg had a 75% win rate (6-2 small sample size but still ~70% win rate for zerg through all tournaments although it includes some foreigner vs korean matches) vs Terran on this map too in the GSL. Would you just attribute it to the same circumstances?
I can just do a quick one right now.
There are a total of 7 reasons why ZvT is in favor of Zerg on this map:
1) Large area in the three base origin. Specifically the distance from the main to the natural, the natural to the wall, the wall to the third in terms of walking distance is longer than Steppes of War. This makes it hard to cover all 3 bases (In comparison to its contemporary maps like say Frost 1 tank can cover main and natural or one force can cover all 3).
2) A wide open space with semi large open air gaps leads to 3 things: 2a) Overlord coverage that cannot be punished along the 4 main avenues of attack. 2b) Easy area to spread creep. Even now when you can spread creep onto ramps, it is still easier for Zerg players to spread it in areas that are large flat surfaces. 2c) Lack of Corridors. Generally speaking, Terran wants to fight Zerg in an area filled with valleys, ramps with a medium sized room so they cannot be completely surrounded but still have room to micro (Like say Heavy Rain). On this map, Its too large for Terran to effectively engage unless it's on the extremes right or let sides of the map.
3) Watchtowers. While not as bad as say TDA, the watchertowers are almost always controlled by Zergs in ZvT. In this case the two side watchtowers help the zerg in zoning for drop ships, an especially important tactic on a map with a head to push central area like ths.
4) Base/map layout -> Look at the map and ask where you can safetly 2 rax where your scv cannot be attacked and not be scouted. Then ask yourself where you would place the bunker. This map is a 2rax and 8/8/8 hell. The closest you can put it without being scouted is either on the far side of the natural (Where you're praying to get lucky) or the closest crack near the zerg which is still farther than Steppes of War. And then there are no good places to put a bunker, especially with the ramp that gives zerg a natural advantage. For 8/8/8, you want it as close to the zerg's main cliff as possible, which is the third, but its a double jump and in the natural scouting path of an overlord. To make matters worse, the first overlord is on a natural path to scouting any scvs that want to proxy in the main (Unlike say Heavy Rain or Yeonsu).
5) Wide open 3rd. While not as prevalent as it is in ZvP, Zergs can still put on massive pressure on Terran thirds that are wide open. Doing a bunker/ mine defense is no use as the area is too large and the tank defense is both clunky and inefficent as they can easily roll into your nat assuming you somehow defended the third against a Hyun style 3 base roach bane allin. This exasperates the 6th point.
6) 4th base positions - This is just inherently bad for Terran. Zerg will always have a natural 4th that expands away from the Terran and is protected by a watchtower and ramp. For Terran they can try to expand towards it, but the distance from the 4th to the third is massive if they expand towards the Zerg 4th, and leaves the 3rd open. If they expand away, it leaves the natural open.
7) Clear Cut Drop Paths. This is related to points 2a, 3 and 6. Basically this is like Antiga without the 4th gold in the center with the ramp. Basically there are two drop paths the Terran can use. Either top right or Bot left. This map isn't big enough for Terran to cut diagonally across like say Whirlwind or TDA and isn't small enough like Antiga for them to get in anyway.
On February 15 2014 10:19 Shellshock wrote: Is there any intent to analyze the map or any other map for a different matchup? I like that you did this for Daedalus but it's not like ZvP was the only problem matchup on this map. According to TLPD zerg had a 75% win rate (6-2 small sample size but still ~70% win rate for zerg through all tournaments although it includes some foreigner vs korean matches) vs Terran on this map too in the GSL. Would you just attribute it to the same circumstances?
I can just do a quick one right now.
There are a total of 7 reasons why ZvT is in favor of Zerg on this map:
1) Large area in the three base origin. Specifically the distance from the main to the natural, the natural to the wall, the wall to the third in terms of walking distance is longer than Steppes of War. This makes it hard to cover all 3 bases (In comparison to its contemporary maps like say Frost 1 tank can cover main and natural or one force can cover all 3).
2) A wide open space with semi large open air gaps leads to 3 things: 2a) Overlord coverage that cannot be punished along the 4 main avenues of attack. 2b) Easy area to spread creep. Even now when you can spread creep onto ramps, it is still easier for Zerg players to spread it in areas that are large flat surfaces. 2c) Lack of Corridors. Generally speaking, Terran wants to fight Zerg in an area filled with valleys, ramps with a medium sized room so they cannot be completely surrounded but still have room to micro (Like say Heavy Rain). On this map, Its too large for Terran to effectively engage unless it's on the extremes right or let sides of the map.
3) Watchtowers. While not as bad as say TDA, the watchertowers are almost always controlled by Zergs in ZvT. In this case the two side watchtowers help the zerg in zoning for drop ships, an especially important tactic on a map with a head to push central area like ths.
4) Base/map layout -> Look at the map and ask where you can safetly 2 rax where your scv cannot be attacked and not be scouted. Then ask yourself where you would place the bunker. This map is a 2rax and 8/8/8 hell. The closest you can put it without being scouted is either on the far side of the natural (Where you're praying to get lucky) or the closest crack near the zerg which is still farther than Steppes of War. And then there are no good places to put a bunker, especially with the ramp that gives zerg a natural advantage. For 8/8/8, you want it as close to the zerg's main cliff as possible, which is the third, but its a double jump and in the natural scouting path of an overlord. To make matters worse, the first overlord is on a natural path to scouting any scvs that want to proxy in the main (Unlike say Heavy Rain or Yeonsu).
5) Wide open 3rd. While not as prevalent as it is in ZvP, Zergs can still put on massive pressure on Terran thirds that are wide open. Doing a bunker/ mine defense is no use as the area is too large and the tank defense is both clunky and inefficent as they can easily roll into your nat assuming you somehow defended the third against a Hyun style 3 base roach bane allin. This exasperates the 6th point.
6) 4th base positions - This is just inherently bad for Terran. Zerg will always have a natural 4th that expands away from the Terran and is protected by a watchtower and ramp. For Terran they can try to expand towards it, but the distance from the 4th to the third is massive if they expand towards the Zerg 4th, and leaves the 3rd open. If they expand away, it leaves the natural open.
7) Clear Cut Drop Paths. This is related to points 2a, 3 and 6. Basically this is like Antiga without the 4th gold in the center with the ramp. Basically there are two drop paths the Terran can use. Either top right or Bot left. This map isn't big enough for Terran to cut diagonally across like say Whirlwind or TDA and isn't small enough like Antiga for them to get in anyway.
However, the short rush distance would suggest that terran will have extremely powerful 2 base pushes should they choose to commit to that kind of strategy.
On February 15 2014 10:19 Shellshock wrote: Is there any intent to analyze the map or any other map for a different matchup? I like that you did this for Daedalus but it's not like ZvP was the only problem matchup on this map. According to TLPD zerg had a 75% win rate (6-2 small sample size but still ~70% win rate for zerg through all tournaments although it includes some foreigner vs korean matches) vs Terran on this map too in the GSL. Would you just attribute it to the same circumstances?
I can just do a quick one right now.
There are a total of 7 reasons why ZvT is in favor of Zerg on this map:
1) Large area in the three base origin. Specifically the distance from the main to the natural, the natural to the wall, the wall to the third in terms of walking distance is longer than Steppes of War. This makes it hard to cover all 3 bases (In comparison to its contemporary maps like say Frost 1 tank can cover main and natural or one force can cover all 3).
2) A wide open space with semi large open air gaps leads to 3 things: 2a) Overlord coverage that cannot be punished along the 4 main avenues of attack. 2b) Easy area to spread creep. Even now when you can spread creep onto ramps, it is still easier for Zerg players to spread it in areas that are large flat surfaces. 2c) Lack of Corridors. Generally speaking, Terran wants to fight Zerg in an area filled with valleys, ramps with a medium sized room so they cannot be completely surrounded but still have room to micro (Like say Heavy Rain). On this map, Its too large for Terran to effectively engage unless it's on the extremes right or let sides of the map.
3) Watchtowers. While not as bad as say TDA, the watchertowers are almost always controlled by Zergs in ZvT. In this case the two side watchtowers help the zerg in zoning for drop ships, an especially important tactic on a map with a head to push central area like ths.
4) Base/map layout -> Look at the map and ask where you can safetly 2 rax where your scv cannot be attacked and not be scouted. Then ask yourself where you would place the bunker. This map is a 2rax and 8/8/8 hell. The closest you can put it without being scouted is either on the far side of the natural (Where you're praying to get lucky) or the closest crack near the zerg which is still farther than Steppes of War. And then there are no good places to put a bunker, especially with the ramp that gives zerg a natural advantage. For 8/8/8, you want it as close to the zerg's main cliff as possible, which is the third, but its a double jump and in the natural scouting path of an overlord. To make matters worse, the first overlord is on a natural path to scouting any scvs that want to proxy in the main (Unlike say Heavy Rain or Yeonsu).
5) Wide open 3rd. While not as prevalent as it is in ZvP, Zergs can still put on massive pressure on Terran thirds that are wide open. Doing a bunker/ mine defense is no use as the area is too large and the tank defense is both clunky and inefficent as they can easily roll into your nat assuming you somehow defended the third against a Hyun style 3 base roach bane allin. This exasperates the 6th point.
6) 4th base positions - This is just inherently bad for Terran. Zerg will always have a natural 4th that expands away from the Terran and is protected by a watchtower and ramp. For Terran they can try to expand towards it, but the distance from the 4th to the third is massive if they expand towards the Zerg 4th, and leaves the 3rd open. If they expand away, it leaves the natural open.
7) Clear Cut Drop Paths. This is related to points 2a, 3 and 6. Basically this is like Antiga without the 4th gold in the center with the ramp. Basically there are two drop paths the Terran can use. Either top right or Bot left. This map isn't big enough for Terran to cut diagonally across like say Whirlwind or TDA and isn't small enough like Antiga for them to get in anyway.
However, the short rush distance would suggest that terran will have extremely powerful 2 base pushes should they choose to commit to that kind of strategy.
There are no good 2 base pushes anymore after the queen change or Sting would be top tier.
On February 15 2014 10:19 Shellshock wrote: Is there any intent to analyze the map or any other map for a different matchup? I like that you did this for Daedalus but it's not like ZvP was the only problem matchup on this map. According to TLPD zerg had a 75% win rate (6-2 small sample size but still ~70% win rate for zerg through all tournaments although it includes some foreigner vs korean matches) vs Terran on this map too in the GSL. Would you just attribute it to the same circumstances?
I can just do a quick one right now.
There are a total of 7 reasons why ZvT is in favor of Zerg on this map:
1) Large area in the three base origin. Specifically the distance from the main to the natural, the natural to the wall, the wall to the third in terms of walking distance is longer than Steppes of War. This makes it hard to cover all 3 bases (In comparison to its contemporary maps like say Frost 1 tank can cover main and natural or one force can cover all 3).
2) A wide open space with semi large open air gaps leads to 3 things: 2a) Overlord coverage that cannot be punished along the 4 main avenues of attack. 2b) Easy area to spread creep. Even now when you can spread creep onto ramps, it is still easier for Zerg players to spread it in areas that are large flat surfaces. 2c) Lack of Corridors. Generally speaking, Terran wants to fight Zerg in an area filled with valleys, ramps with a medium sized room so they cannot be completely surrounded but still have room to micro (Like say Heavy Rain). On this map, Its too large for Terran to effectively engage unless it's on the extremes right or let sides of the map.
3) Watchtowers. While not as bad as say TDA, the watchertowers are almost always controlled by Zergs in ZvT. In this case the two side watchtowers help the zerg in zoning for drop ships, an especially important tactic on a map with a head to push central area like ths.
4) Base/map layout -> Look at the map and ask where you can safetly 2 rax where your scv cannot be attacked and not be scouted. Then ask yourself where you would place the bunker. This map is a 2rax and 8/8/8 hell. The closest you can put it without being scouted is either on the far side of the natural (Where you're praying to get lucky) or the closest crack near the zerg which is still farther than Steppes of War. And then there are no good places to put a bunker, especially with the ramp that gives zerg a natural advantage. For 8/8/8, you want it as close to the zerg's main cliff as possible, which is the third, but its a double jump and in the natural scouting path of an overlord. To make matters worse, the first overlord is on a natural path to scouting any scvs that want to proxy in the main (Unlike say Heavy Rain or Yeonsu).
5) Wide open 3rd. While not as prevalent as it is in ZvP, Zergs can still put on massive pressure on Terran thirds that are wide open. Doing a bunker/ mine defense is no use as the area is too large and the tank defense is both clunky and inefficent as they can easily roll into your nat assuming you somehow defended the third against a Hyun style 3 base roach bane allin. This exasperates the 6th point.
6) 4th base positions - This is just inherently bad for Terran. Zerg will always have a natural 4th that expands away from the Terran and is protected by a watchtower and ramp. For Terran they can try to expand towards it, but the distance from the 4th to the third is massive if they expand towards the Zerg 4th, and leaves the 3rd open. If they expand away, it leaves the natural open.
7) Clear Cut Drop Paths. This is related to points 2a, 3 and 6. Basically this is like Antiga without the 4th gold in the center with the ramp. Basically there are two drop paths the Terran can use. Either top right or Bot left. This map isn't big enough for Terran to cut diagonally across like say Whirlwind or TDA and isn't small enough like Antiga for them to get in anyway.
On February 15 2014 10:19 Shellshock wrote: Is there any intent to analyze the map or any other map for a different matchup? I like that you did this for Daedalus but it's not like ZvP was the only problem matchup on this map. According to TLPD zerg had a 75% win rate (6-2 small sample size but still ~70% win rate for zerg through all tournaments although it includes some foreigner vs korean matches) vs Terran on this map too in the GSL. Would you just attribute it to the same circumstances?
I can just do a quick one right now.
There are a total of 7 reasons why ZvT is in favor of Zerg on this map:
1) Large area in the three base origin. Specifically the distance from the main to the natural, the natural to the wall, the wall to the third in terms of walking distance is longer than Steppes of War. This makes it hard to cover all 3 bases (In comparison to its contemporary maps like say Frost 1 tank can cover main and natural or one force can cover all 3).
2) A wide open space with semi large open air gaps leads to 3 things: 2a) Overlord coverage that cannot be punished along the 4 main avenues of attack. 2b) Easy area to spread creep. Even now when you can spread creep onto ramps, it is still easier for Zerg players to spread it in areas that are large flat surfaces. 2c) Lack of Corridors. Generally speaking, Terran wants to fight Zerg in an area filled with valleys, ramps with a medium sized room so they cannot be completely surrounded but still have room to micro (Like say Heavy Rain). On this map, Its too large for Terran to effectively engage unless it's on the extremes right or let sides of the map.
3) Watchtowers. While not as bad as say TDA, the watchertowers are almost always controlled by Zergs in ZvT. In this case the two side watchtowers help the zerg in zoning for drop ships, an especially important tactic on a map with a head to push central area like ths.
4) Base/map layout -> Look at the map and ask where you can safetly 2 rax where your scv cannot be attacked and not be scouted. Then ask yourself where you would place the bunker. This map is a 2rax and 8/8/8 hell. The closest you can put it without being scouted is either on the far side of the natural (Where you're praying to get lucky) or the closest crack near the zerg which is still farther than Steppes of War. And then there are no good places to put a bunker, especially with the ramp that gives zerg a natural advantage. For 8/8/8, you want it as close to the zerg's main cliff as possible, which is the third, but its a double jump and in the natural scouting path of an overlord. To make matters worse, the first overlord is on a natural path to scouting any scvs that want to proxy in the main (Unlike say Heavy Rain or Yeonsu).
5) Wide open 3rd. While not as prevalent as it is in ZvP, Zergs can still put on massive pressure on Terran thirds that are wide open. Doing a bunker/ mine defense is no use as the area is too large and the tank defense is both clunky and inefficent as they can easily roll into your nat assuming you somehow defended the third against a Hyun style 3 base roach bane allin. This exasperates the 6th point.
6) 4th base positions - This is just inherently bad for Terran. Zerg will always have a natural 4th that expands away from the Terran and is protected by a watchtower and ramp. For Terran they can try to expand towards it, but the distance from the 4th to the third is massive if they expand towards the Zerg 4th, and leaves the 3rd open. If they expand away, it leaves the natural open.
7) Clear Cut Drop Paths. This is related to points 2a, 3 and 6. Basically this is like Antiga without the 4th gold in the center with the ramp. Basically there are two drop paths the Terran can use. Either top right or Bot left. This map isn't big enough for Terran to cut diagonally across like say Whirlwind or TDA and isn't small enough like Antiga for them to get in anyway.
However, the short rush distance would suggest that terran will have extremely powerful 2 base pushes should they choose to commit to that kind of strategy.
There are no good 2 base pushes anymore after the queen change or Sting would be top tier.
Well, not on other maps, but there might be an exception on this one due to the rush distance being so short from natural to natural. Hellbat Marauder with medivacs, for example.
I think the main issue with maps like these, and you allude to it in one of your replies, is if something is extremely difficult/impossible to expand safely on, you eliminate an option.
With Protoss having the greedy/economical side of their choices taken away, they are immediately more limited to all-innish builds, of which there are a finite amount (easier said than done to scout them though!), or conservative play that sticks them behind.
One of the strengths of a Protoss allin, is that unless you get a full scout of on pretty much anything the architecture for some of their builds will be much the same. There are certain tells of course, but equally some players abused said tells (for example early +1 and an early Robo to do mindgameish expands. The additional 4/5 gates you will be adding on could just as well be a third nexus and it's that flexibility that makes Protoss so potent in PvZ.
On the point of the introduction of truly insane maps, weren't there quite a few in last year's PL map pool? I remember one being especially wonky, oh god forget its name though.
I do appreciate actually looking into Daedaelus though, rather than jut outright trashing it. I think the main issue was for me, that the natural being extremely wide was terrible for Protoss, but equally there weren't really any other map features that were bad for Zergs. Zergs were essentially playing on a normal map for them, while Protoss were starting from a weird position. The wide natural did introduce a wider area for Zergs to defend vs Hellions vT for example as well, and affect other matchups too ofc.
Agree with the thrust of the article. I think the moral of the story is that there needs to be some reasonable way to incubate and iterate map designs without ruining careers. Syncing the ladder map pool with the official WCS ones is a nice idea on paper, but it removes the possibility of the old dynamic of being able to push out experimental map design ideas onto the ladder and the major tournaments can just pick out mature maps while leaving the experimental maps to incubate.
this map wont be here for next ladder and/or next WCS so i dont care... really. just not gonna play this map as a protoss. already vetoed in my ladder map preference
On February 15 2014 16:25 ChoDing wrote: this map wont be here for next ladder and/or next WCS so i dont care... really. just not gonna play this map as a protoss. already vetoed in my ladder map preference
On February 15 2014 10:19 Shellshock wrote: Is there any intent to analyze the map or any other map for a different matchup? I like that you did this for Daedalus but it's not like ZvP was the only problem matchup on this map. According to TLPD zerg had a 75% win rate (6-2 small sample size but still ~70% win rate for zerg through all tournaments although it includes some foreigner vs korean matches) vs Terran on this map too in the GSL. Would you just attribute it to the same circumstances?
Initially i was going to include ZvT as well, but every Terran (and Zerg) i have talked to in TL Strat didn't feel that the map is/was particularly broken in that matchup, so i ended up focusing on ZvP.
It's a hard map in that matchup for sure, but arguably not to the extent of ZvP (on the old one).
Like these 3 maps are great for PvZ, and then there are 6 other maps that are horrible for PvZ, but add so much more dynamics to PvT, ZvT, ZvZ TvT and PvP
As the article starts - the only real constraint in map designing is "Is it good for PvZ"
So why don't we look as PvZ maps, that ofc can be used by everyone, and maps for everyone else?
Its not like this wasn't done before. I read on the TL forums that P was more likely to win in Fall because the BW maps favoured toss in that season, giving extra weight to "The Legend of the Fall" (iirc)
Great analysis! It's so easy to just feel something is frustrated and broken when what one knows just doesn't work. Also, I <3 Nony! I think he has some of the best insights into very dynamic situations... ones that haven't always been "figured out" yet. Sometimes I feel he's a well loved, but under-utilized asset to this whole community.
I am slightly confused about the way new maps have to be nowadays? What happened to the old forge+gate+nexus walls that people used to do on Metalopolis for example? Why is it suddenly a *must have* to have a close and small ramp leading from the Nat to the open field ?
I used the old Nexus wall with gate and forge on ladder it felt pretty standard to me and not that much more different than old maps that didnt have a highround coming onto the nat? (we didnt even have Nexus Cannon back then and it worked)
On February 15 2014 20:20 Arachne wrote: I've always wondered.
Why don 't we have race specific maps?
Like these 3 maps are great for PvZ, and then there are 6 other maps that are horrible for PvZ, but add so much more dynamics to PvT, ZvT, ZvZ TvT and PvP
As the article starts - the only real constraint in map designing is "Is it good for PvZ"
So why don't we look as PvZ maps, that ofc can be used by everyone, and maps for everyone else?
Its not like this wasn't done before. I read on the TL forums that P was more likely to win in Fall because the BW maps favoured toss in that season, giving extra weight to "The Legend of the Fall" (iirc)
It isn't the only constraint. You need reasonable air space for mutas/drops to be able to do damage, but not be op; you still need a defensible third that's not too wide open for ZvT as well; the natural has to be reasonably defensible for ZvZ and ZvT too, you need a one-ff ramp for PvP, you need reasonable space to make blink builds defensible in PvP and PvT (and the reason Yeonsu is pretty broken in PvT is this very reason), etc. It just so happens that the most relevant constraints for this specific map happen to affect PvZ more than other matchups.
The Legend of the Fall isn't just "protoss winning in autumn because of maps"; for instance, every protoss that won a title in the fall beat an SKT1 Terran (the best bw terrans with few exceptions) in the finals too.
@poster above me: a) you can't do that wall either on Daedalus because one cannon needs to cover both every building in the wall as well as the entire mineral line, which is not possible on Daedalus. Also, you need to be able to fully wall to hold various slowling or speedling allins (which didn't exist back then) and runbys. You don't need a ramp going to the natural, you need a wallable choke. High ground is just a neat bonus.
this is incredible. Protoss wins eveything at the moment, (even Mana beat JD, wtf?) and still some dudes complain about a map, where protoss players do not dominate the other races as heavily as on other maps. what is wrong :D
On February 15 2014 23:42 Sepplo wrote: this is incredible. Protoss wins eveything at the moment, (even Mana beat JD, wtf?) and still some dudes complain about a map, where protoss players do not dominate the other races as heavily as on other maps. what is wrong :D
hm, I though there would be something said about the rest of the map as well.
I think this map is terrible now. The middle is just a wide-open space, no ramps, no choke, no watch towers. All bases are at the edges of the map out of the way. There's almost no positional play possible on this map at all (except for TvT but that's due to the nature of that matchup). I think it's one of the most boring and lamest maps ever now after the only interesting and different feature of this map was removed.
On February 16 2014 02:56 pieroog wrote: WHY every map needs to be technically the same? have this, have that... no wonder SC2 has not many surprises any more
I explained in the article why maps need to be follow some constraints....
On February 16 2014 03:32 ImperialFist wrote: Daedalus Point could have been a way to balance out the balance overall? We saw this in BW, no?
Not to the extent of making a matchup completely and utterly unplayable, thus pretty much giving a free win to one player. That seemed to be the case (not saying it was or wasnt, because the whole point of my write-up was that we dont have enough data to know) for the old version of Daedalus.
For what it's worth, the map is as open as ever so it's still really good for Zerg anyway, simlarly to Derelict Watcher.
We might never know now. But I have a small theory that, in time it would have been proven that the map is well and truly broken for the PvZ match up, and here is why.
If TvP has shown us anything, is that the threat of aggression can be nearly as powerful as aggression itself. If say after a long enough period of time Protoss would have not been able to find a build that is both economical and somewhat safe, then they would have been doomed to nearly always lose on the map from one reason or another.
On the one hand the threat of early game aggression would always be in the back of the Protoss mind, and to such an extent that they would have to play safe, least they die to some early aggression, regardless if it came or not. However if they played safe enough to expand in such a way to not die on the map, then they still risked falling behind economically later on in the game.
This is exactly what is happening now in TvP, Terrans are forced into a extremely safe and standardized build that is forced to take into account any threat, oracles, blink all-ins etc. However, do to the flexibility protoss has in adjusting builds in PvT, they can easily faint aggression and then go into extreme greed, and the terran can't do anything to adjust, they don't have the scouting tools to reliably discern what is happening, and they don't have the tools to adapt as easily as toss now.
I think this situation was happening exactly like this but with the protoss being the victim. If they played safe enough to expand then they would have fallen behind economically in the mid game and failed to take a 3rd, if they didn't play safe enough and taking into account every precaution then they risked dying to any number of early game pressures.
In a way I'm sorry the map was put into the competitive circuit in this manner, because it would have been interesting to keep the initial version long enough to at least prove this theory.
I think one of the biggest problems, is that strategies are mostly created without specific maps, or map elements in mind. An example would be heavy rain, which is (in my opinion) an awesome map for interesting strategies. One of the coolest moments I have seen in the last weeks, was when in a ZvZ one player did a heavy roach attack and had ~1.5 times as much roaches as the defender, pretty unwinable most of the time. But the defender used the collapsible rocks to split the attacking force in half. I'm just someone knows what game it was, i've sadly forgotten it ;_; Anyway: If more players would try to work with unique features of the map, more types of maps would be viable. Daedalus may be a pretty bad map for ZvP, but i think other matchups are lots of fun on it. Especially ZvZ was pretty awesome (I'm a zerg player myself). An other thought about daedalus is, that there are to many unique features of one type: Everything is pretty open. There is nothing in the middle of the map. If it had the giant ramps but a very choky center, i think the map would play out quite differently and maybe not as zerg-favored.
On February 16 2014 03:55 Destructicon wrote: We might never know now. But I have a small theory that, in time it would have been proven that the map is well and truly broken for the PvZ match up, and here is why.
If TvP has shown us anything, is that the threat of aggression can be nearly as powerful as aggression itself. If say after a long enough period of time Protoss would have not been able to find a build that is both economical and somewhat safe, then they would have been doomed to nearly always lose on the map from one reason or another.
On the one hand the threat of early game aggression would always be in the back of the Protoss mind, and to such an extent that they would have to play safe, least they die to some early aggression, regardless if it came or not. However if they played safe enough to expand in such a way to not die on the map, then they still risked falling behind economically later on in the game.
This is exactly what is happening now in TvP, Terrans are forced into a extremely safe and standardized build that is forced to take into account any threat, oracles, blink all-ins etc. However, do to the flexibility protoss has in adjusting builds in PvT, they can easily faint aggression and then go into extreme greed, and the terran can't do anything to adjust, they don't have the scouting tools to reliably discern what is happening, and they don't have the tools to adapt as easily as toss now.
I think this situation was happening exactly like this but with the protoss being the victim. If they played safe enough to expand then they would have fallen behind economically in the mid game and failed to take a 3rd, if they didn't play safe enough and taking into account every precaution then they risked dying to any number of early game pressures.
In a way I'm sorry the map was put into the competitive circuit in this manner, because it would have been interesting to keep the initial version long enough to at least prove this theory.
But Nony gave us a good point:
What if there is a build, that is greedy enough to take a nat, that vs economy play isn't too far behind, but if shut down puts the zerg in a very tough spot.
Lets say you did a standard one gate expo and zerg cut drones at 20 to make many lings off one base. Is losing the nat really so bad? Esepcially if you kill a bunch of lings?
This kind of dynamic is special to the ZvX matchups and different from T or P v X.
In this sense, with enough time, maybe there would be some way to trade so efficiently you can win a war of attrition vs low drone counts. Or if you can force a certain reaction? Its the same dynamic that allows a third base with just one void ray a mama core and one warpgate. Sure Zerg can hurt or cancel the third, but the cost of doing so is so high that if the zerg does it reactively or plans for it they need to cut a lot of workers.
Its how Naniwa's Blink fast third in PvZ works from the WCS finals vs Revival. He would take a really fast third, revival cut drones at 50ish to deny it with roach ling, and Naniwa would trade the nexus for a few roaches then counterattack with a huge blink stalker force and 4 sentries to cut off choke points. With good micro Revival had given up too much economy and tech to win a war of attrition with a ton of blink stalkers. And when he was out of gas, Naniwa would take his third with the extra minerals instead of making zealots and win the game.
On February 16 2014 03:55 Destructicon wrote: We might never know now. But I have a small theory that, in time it would have been proven that the map is well and truly broken for the PvZ match up, and here is why.
If TvP has shown us anything, is that the threat of aggression can be nearly as powerful as aggression itself. If say after a long enough period of time Protoss would have not been able to find a build that is both economical and somewhat safe, then they would have been doomed to nearly always lose on the map from one reason or another.
On the one hand the threat of early game aggression would always be in the back of the Protoss mind, and to such an extent that they would have to play safe, least they die to some early aggression, regardless if it came or not. However if they played safe enough to expand in such a way to not die on the map, then they still risked falling behind economically later on in the game.
This is exactly what is happening now in TvP, Terrans are forced into a extremely safe and standardized build that is forced to take into account any threat, oracles, blink all-ins etc. However, do to the flexibility protoss has in adjusting builds in PvT, they can easily faint aggression and then go into extreme greed, and the terran can't do anything to adjust, they don't have the scouting tools to reliably discern what is happening, and they don't have the tools to adapt as easily as toss now.
I think this situation was happening exactly like this but with the protoss being the victim. If they played safe enough to expand then they would have fallen behind economically in the mid game and failed to take a 3rd, if they didn't play safe enough and taking into account every precaution then they risked dying to any number of early game pressures.
In a way I'm sorry the map was put into the competitive circuit in this manner, because it would have been interesting to keep the initial version long enough to at least prove this theory.
But Nony gave us a good point:
What if there is a build, that is greedy enough to take a nat, that vs economy play isn't too far behind, but if shut down puts the zerg in a very tough spot.
Lets say you did a standard one gate expo and zerg cut drones at 20 to make many lings off one base. Is losing the nat really so bad? Esepcially if you kill a bunch of lings?
This kind of dynamic is special to the ZvX matchups and different from T or P v X.
In this sense, with enough time, maybe there would be some way to trade so efficiently you can win a war of attrition vs low drone counts. Or if you can force a certain reaction? Its the same dynamic that allows a third base with just one void ray a mama core and one warpgate. Sure Zerg can hurt or cancel the third, but the cost of doing so is so high that if the zerg does it reactively or plans for it they need to cut a lot of workers.
Its how Naniwa's Blink fast third in PvZ works from the WCS finals vs Revival. He would take a really fast third, revival cut drones at 50ish to deny it with roach ling, and Naniwa would trade the nexus for a few roaches then counterattack with a huge blink stalker force and 4 sentries to cut off choke points. With good micro Revival had given up too much economy and tech to win a war of attrition with a ton of blink stalkers. And when he was out of gas, Naniwa would take his third with the extra minerals instead of making zealots and win the game.
Yes, Nony did make a very good point and I acknowledge that and admit that my own thoughts are just my own theory, I have a strong feeling how it was going to play out but can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I well and truly wish Deadelus 1.0 would have somehow lingered in the competitive scene in some form for enough of a period of time to prove or disprove this theory.
Right now we are kind of stuck like spectators at the end of a murder film that ends in a cliffhanger, with more questions then answers.
Am I the only one who doesn't think maps should have to be designed around shitty protoss imbalance (or whatever you want to call it)?
I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open).
Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did.
PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well.
I know Blizzard are never going to let you in on WHY they do things but im not going to sit here and take that a company which produced AAA title after title are doing this to mess things up. I strongly believe they tried something here with the daedelus map (cant stop wanting to watch stargate every time i think of it) to try and get the game out of its stale play at the moment. Come on. Are non of you getting bored of sc2 at the minute? It really is a ball up and a move fest, ive been watching most games and top streamers every day since games were openly streamed and ive NEVER seen it this boring. NEARLY ALL of those best of games in the list a month ago were the 40+ minute bore games where each player balled a bit and then traded, balled and bit and traded. Its just a massive clump all the time. I believe 100% that blizzard were experimenting with this map to see if they could force some innovation OR compensate for the fact the complaints were out about protoss. the argument comes in about the pro players and their livelihood being based off a map . . well thats not the games fault . . its the RULES of the tournament they are in. If you look whats happened now, its all gone back to being the same, toss opening same way as ever games going the same way . . the most fun ive had this year so far was qxc's games yesterday . . half the fun of this game is reading up on the new starts people use when they start to figure stuff out. . . i remember just before the bloordInfester in wol, the option was always viable, noone used infesters, a pro player coach told me i should never build more than 6 infesters and in the mlg that very weekend a pro built 20 (i really wish i could remember who did it) and then suddenly the birth of the strat everyone complained about . . it was always in the game!
On February 16 2014 06:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't think maps should have to be designed around shitty protoss imbalance (or whatever you want to call it)?
I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open).
Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did.
PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well.
The game was really different in early WoL and zerg builds have adapted over time. There are good 2 base zerg builds but lets consider the following:
7 gate builds used to work so did 4 gate, they don't know, ever, on any map.
So its not just the maps but evolution of play as well. While the early maps werent good for Zerg, lets also remember that Cauthonluck beat Idra with an 10/11/11//11 build where he went banshees on one base at 11 supply (up to 13) and with a 10 depot. Idra had 2 queens in this game because at the time, queens were considered terrible, they also made queens later and didnt make a 2nd queen to transfer to the nat and the nat was taken after speed started. So ....
Glad they fixed the ramp on this map...I couldn't imagine no walloff, or even trying to wall off that gigantic ramp. Regardless, I think i'm going to leave it veto'ed for alittle longer until I can see some other successes on that map...
On February 16 2014 06:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't think maps should have to be designed around shitty protoss imbalance (or whatever you want to call it)?
I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open).
Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did.
PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well.
The game was really different in early WoL and zerg builds have adapted over time. There are good 2 base zerg builds but lets consider the following:
7 gate builds used to work so did 4 gate, they don't know, ever, on any map.
So its not just the maps but evolution of play as well. While the early maps werent good for Zerg, lets also remember that Cauthonluck beat Idra with an 10/11/11//11 build where he went banshees on one base at 11 supply (up to 13) and with a 10 depot. Idra had 2 queens in this game because at the time, queens were considered terrible, they also made queens later and didnt make a 2nd queen to transfer to the nat and the nat was taken after speed started. So ....
evo used to be required as well. My point is that it feels like protoss are just upset that they can't get easy cheap bases like they are used to being spoonfed. What's wrong with letting people try to adapt a while until we change things or decide how maps should be created. I mean isn't that the best aspect of an RTS game? And partially why people say sc2 is dying? People like to see diversity, adaptability, evolution, etc. It keeps things interesting. And the only reason why BW stayed so successful was due to discovered bugs, map tricks/hacks, and map makers just trying out crazy concepts (even if they were terribly imbalanced).
On February 16 2014 06:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't think maps should have to be designed around shitty protoss imbalance (or whatever you want to call it)?
I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open).
Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did.
PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well.
The game was really different in early WoL and zerg builds have adapted over time. There are good 2 base zerg builds but lets consider the following:
7 gate builds used to work so did 4 gate, they don't know, ever, on any map.
So its not just the maps but evolution of play as well. While the early maps werent good for Zerg, lets also remember that Cauthonluck beat Idra with an 10/11/11//11 build where he went banshees on one base at 11 supply (up to 13) and with a 10 depot. Idra had 2 queens in this game because at the time, queens were considered terrible, they also made queens later and didnt make a 2nd queen to transfer to the nat and the nat was taken after speed started. So ....
evo used to be required as well. My point is that it feels like protoss are just upset that they can't get easy cheap bases like they are used to being spoonfed. What's wrong with letting people try to adapt a while until we change things or decide how maps should be created. I mean isn't that the best aspect of an RTS game? And partially why people say sc2 is dying? People like to see diversity, adaptability, evolution, etc. It keeps things interesting. And the only reason why BW stayed so successful was due to discovered bugs, map tricks/hacks, and map makers just trying out crazy concepts (even if they were terribly imbalanced).
Maps like Coulee changed the entire game.
>People complain protoss are cheesy and allin too much >Also want protoss to allin and not take extra bases
I get that you want more diversity. Go play protoss 1 base only on the ladder and see how many reliable builds you can come up with. Now halve that amount due to the fact that progamers study their opponents builds beforehand. Unless you want to see really wonky builds like offensive wall-ins every game, no, it's not going to work. Simply theorycrafting here does nothing. The analysis has explained very clearly why this map is not okay.
I get that you're still pissed about the early WoL days where everything was anti-zerg (I'd be too), but that's not an excuse for things to be shitty now.
On February 16 2014 06:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't think maps should have to be designed around shitty protoss imbalance (or whatever you want to call it)?
I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open).
Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did.
PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well.
The game was really different in early WoL and zerg builds have adapted over time. There are good 2 base zerg builds but lets consider the following:
7 gate builds used to work so did 4 gate, they don't know, ever, on any map.
So its not just the maps but evolution of play as well. While the early maps werent good for Zerg, lets also remember that Cauthonluck beat Idra with an 10/11/11//11 build where he went banshees on one base at 11 supply (up to 13) and with a 10 depot. Idra had 2 queens in this game because at the time, queens were considered terrible, they also made queens later and didnt make a 2nd queen to transfer to the nat and the nat was taken after speed started. So ....
evo used to be required as well. My point is that it feels like protoss are just upset that they can't get easy cheap bases like they are used to being spoonfed. What's wrong with letting people try to adapt a while until we change things or decide how maps should be created. I mean isn't that the best aspect of an RTS game? And partially why people say sc2 is dying? People like to see diversity, adaptability, evolution, etc. It keeps things interesting. And the only reason why BW stayed so successful was due to discovered bugs, map tricks/hacks, and map makers just trying out crazy concepts (even if they were terribly imbalanced).
Maps like Coulee changed the entire game.
Again, the point isn't that the map isn't fine per se, it's how it was introduced. Read the article again if you missed that part. This map's (apparent) original imbalances was actually the decider in several series in Code A, which is pretty ridicolous.
Also, every race these days expects to be able to fast expand safely in every matchup (except PvP), because that's how the game is played.
On February 15 2014 20:20 Arachne wrote: I've always wondered.
Why don 't we have race specific maps?
Like these 3 maps are great for PvZ, and then there are 6 other maps that are horrible for PvZ, but add so much more dynamics to PvT, ZvT, ZvZ TvT and PvP
As the article starts - the only real constraint in map designing is "Is it good for PvZ"
So why don't we look as PvZ maps, that ofc can be used by everyone, and maps for everyone else?
Its not like this wasn't done before. I read on the TL forums that P was more likely to win in Fall because the BW maps favoured toss in that season, giving extra weight to "The Legend of the Fall" (iirc)
It isn't the only constraint. You need reasonable air space for mutas/drops to be able to do damage, but not be op; you still need a defensible third that's not too wide open for ZvT as well; the natural has to be reasonably defensible for ZvZ and ZvT too, you need a one-ff ramp for PvP, you need reasonable space to make blink builds defensible in PvP and PvT (and the reason Yeonsu is pretty broken in PvT is this very reason), etc. It just so happens that the most relevant constraints for this specific map happen to affect PvZ more than other matchups.
The Legend of the Fall isn't just "protoss winning in autumn because of maps"; for instance, every protoss that won a title in the fall beat an SKT1 Terran (the best bw terrans with few exceptions) in the finals too.
@poster above me: a) you can't do that wall either on Daedalus because one cannon needs to cover both every building in the wall as well as the entire mineral line, which is not possible on Daedalus. Also, you need to be able to fully wall to hold various slowling or speedling allins (which didn't exist back then) and runbys. You don't need a ramp going to the natural, you need a wallable choke. High ground is just a neat bonus.
Ok, I admit my ignorance in the art of SC2 map making. but again, whats stopping something like "This is a P friendly map" "This is a Z friendly map", etc, etc.
I realize it would be a lot of work, but on the other hand, it would add new dynamics to the game in that maps could focus entirely on one race/matchup, and you wouldn't become sick of "oh look, aanother daybreak game because guess its the only map that no one actually finds that imbalanced"
At one stage, GSL felt like Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom and Antigua every match, every race (I know it wasn't).
Remember Tears of the Moon? Remember the TL backlash when Bisu publically complained about that map? I think that shows pretty well that fans of opposing races will never accept map criticism as legitimate, articles like this or not.
On February 16 2014 06:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't think maps should have to be designed around shitty protoss imbalance (or whatever you want to call it)?
I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open).
Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did.
PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well.
The game was really different in early WoL and zerg builds have adapted over time. There are good 2 base zerg builds but lets consider the following:
7 gate builds used to work so did 4 gate, they don't know, ever, on any map.
So its not just the maps but evolution of play as well. While the early maps werent good for Zerg, lets also remember that Cauthonluck beat Idra with an 10/11/11//11 build where he went banshees on one base at 11 supply (up to 13) and with a 10 depot. Idra had 2 queens in this game because at the time, queens were considered terrible, they also made queens later and didnt make a 2nd queen to transfer to the nat and the nat was taken after speed started. So ....
evo used to be required as well. My point is that it feels like protoss are just upset that they can't get easy cheap bases like they are used to being spoonfed. What's wrong with letting people try to adapt a while until we change things or decide how maps should be created. I mean isn't that the best aspect of an RTS game? And partially why people say sc2 is dying? People like to see diversity, adaptability, evolution, etc. It keeps things interesting. And the only reason why BW stayed so successful was due to discovered bugs, map tricks/hacks, and map makers just trying out crazy concepts (even if they were terribly imbalanced).
Maps like Coulee changed the entire game.
Again, the point isn't that the map isn't fine per se, it's how it was introduced. Read the article again if you missed that part. This map's (apparent) original imbalances was actually the decider in several series in Code A, which is pretty ridicolous.
Also, every race these days expects to be able to fast expand safely in every matchup (except PvP), because that's how the game is played.
This mentality that you have italicised yourself, is the essential problem with the article. "How the game is played" and what anyone "expects" is completely irrelevant. A proffesional player is supposed to play the game in any way that brings victory. You even went so far to admit that it might have been possible that the map could be figured out by innovating enough, but you completely avoided the right conclusion: if someone is at fault, it is the players for not having done that. Even the analysis of the games clearly shows that the players were confused and all possibilities were not thought through - but that is just not acceptable and thus their loss was justified. Players just did not take the challenge posed by the map seriously enough. Not having enough time is also not a valid excuse - everyone should have identified from the first look at the map that this could be the breaking point and focused heavily on it. What are the teams and coaches for?
honestly this just kinda proves what most everyone who does sit crying about balance already knows...the races are so closely balanced that map balance is much more important than race balance. also the real reason broodwar was so "perfectly balanced" is that blizzard didnt try to regulate map pools...korean map makers really balanced the game. i honestly don't know why blizzard wants so desperately to control maps in sc2.
nearly every map blizzard makes it just seems like they are trying to force changes in the meta or something. blizzard posts are always talking about map diversity and new and different strategies and such, but what really happens...casual players veto the map, and pros cheese when it comes up in a tournament.
On February 17 2014 23:27 chris2423 wrote: honestly this just kinda proves what most everyone who does sit crying about balance already knows...the races are so closely balanced that map balance is much more important than race balance. also the real reason broodwar was so "perfectly balanced" is that blizzard didnt try to regulate map pools...korean map makers really balanced the game. i honestly don't know why blizzard wants so desperately to control maps in sc2.
nearly every map blizzard makes it just seems like they are trying to force changes in the meta or something. blizzard posts are always talking about map diversity and new and different strategies and such, but what really happens...casual players veto the map, and pros cheese when it comes up in a tournament.
On February 17 2014 23:27 chris2423 wrote: honestly this just kinda proves what most everyone who does sit crying about balance already knows...the races are so closely balanced that map balance is much more important than race balance. also the real reason broodwar was so "perfectly balanced" is that blizzard didnt try to regulate map pools...korean map makers really balanced the game. i honestly don't know why blizzard wants so desperately to control maps in sc2.
nearly every map blizzard makes it just seems like they are trying to force changes in the meta or something. blizzard posts are always talking about map diversity and new and different strategies and such, but what really happens...casual players veto the map, and pros cheese when it comes up in a tournament.
amen
Anyone who knows anything about this game knows that the current map pool is the reason for strong Protoss results. Unfortunately, this site has been so full of whiners lately that it's hardly even worth visiting outside of the (like this one) outstanding articles.
I remember when an LR thread on Championship Sunday used to be a fun place, for discussing the excellence of the players and the silly nuances of the casters. Now, it's just non-stop Protoss whine to an almost Twitch chat level. If I had admin, I would have banned probably 30 people during the IEM Cologne LR thread.
Great article, Nony always adds great depth in SC analysis.
I posted this idea in General Discussion a while back, but got no good feedback (except a lot of what I can only assume was knee-jerk rejection).
Why not introduce maps that can only be played for specific MUs? Just as a random example, a map that can only be played in TvT would have plenty of island expansions, because Terrans can float their CCs like that. Right now we can't have a map like that because it would be broken in TvZ and TvP, thus TvT isn't really allowed to grow. Daedalus would have been either a ZvZ or a PvP map, and that would be that. No skewed PvZ, TvZ, or TvP games.
The biggest criticism I see is that it would force pros to learn lots of maps... but, taking into account that the most maps any two players ever have to play consecutively is 7 in a BO7, a split like 4 "standard" maps that are averagely good for all MUs, and 3 maps per MU would leave every pro with having to know no more than 13 maps at a time. That's one less than the number of maps that were played in WCS over 2013. With a slightly slower rotation, there would be little to no added workload for pros, but we'd have a lot more variability in MUs and many maps where balance is a lot easier to achieve because it's tailor made for those two races duking it out.
I was really annoyed that I didn't get a single serious criticism when I first brought this up, people either said they thought it was interesting, or voted "no" without explaining themselves. What do you guys think?
I really liked this article! Great idea to thoroughly analyze the strategy around such a controversial map, even after the fact that it was addressed by Blizzard.
Thank you to the writers, and of course to NonY for giving this conversation a chance to happen.
On February 18 2014 13:49 pure.Wasted wrote: I posted this idea in General Discussion a while back, but got no good feedback (except a lot of what I can only assume was knee-jerk rejection).
Why not introduce maps that can only be played for specific MUs? Just as a random example, a map that can only be played in TvT would have plenty of island expansions, because Terrans can float their CCs like that. Right now we can't have a map like that because it would be broken in TvZ and TvP, thus TvT isn't really allowed to grow. Daedalus would have been either a ZvZ or a PvP map, and that would be that. No skewed PvZ, TvZ, or TvP games.
The biggest criticism I see is that it would force pros to learn lots of maps... but, taking into account that the most maps any two players ever have to play consecutively is 7 in a BO7, a split like 4 "standard" maps that are averagely good for all MUs, and 3 maps per MU would leave every pro with having to know no more than 13 maps at a time. That's one less than the number of maps that were played in WCS over 2013. With a slightly slower rotation, there would be little to no added workload for pros, but we'd have a lot more variability in MUs and many maps where balance is a lot easier to achieve because it's tailor made for those two races duking it out.
I was really annoyed that I didn't get a single serious criticism when I first brought this up, people either said they thought it was interesting, or voted "no" without explaining themselves. What do you guys think?
Wayyyyyyyyyyy too many maps for the pros to practice.
On February 18 2014 13:49 pure.Wasted wrote: I posted this idea in General Discussion a while back, but got no good feedback (except a lot of what I can only assume was knee-jerk rejection).
Why not introduce maps that can only be played for specific MUs? Just as a random example, a map that can only be played in TvT would have plenty of island expansions, because Terrans can float their CCs like that. Right now we can't have a map like that because it would be broken in TvZ and TvP, thus TvT isn't really allowed to grow. Daedalus would have been either a ZvZ or a PvP map, and that would be that. No skewed PvZ, TvZ, or TvP games.
The biggest criticism I see is that it would force pros to learn lots of maps... but, taking into account that the most maps any two players ever have to play consecutively is 7 in a BO7, a split like 4 "standard" maps that are averagely good for all MUs, and 3 maps per MU would leave every pro with having to know no more than 13 maps at a time. That's one less than the number of maps that were played in WCS over 2013. With a slightly slower rotation, there would be little to no added workload for pros, but we'd have a lot more variability in MUs and many maps where balance is a lot easier to achieve because it's tailor made for those two races duking it out.
I was really annoyed that I didn't get a single serious criticism when I first brought this up, people either said they thought it was interesting, or voted "no" without explaining themselves. What do you guys think?
That would set the game in a very boring MU depending Map Pool. Maps should never decide the result of a game, or the outcomes in win rates of a race.
maps have been progressing further and further from a viewers perspective but for where we are currently at with sc2 this map belongs in the bag with likes of scrap station, lost temple and steppes of war.
EPT![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/Waxangel/misc/daedaluslarge.jpg)
All hail NonY! 
