Consequences of a Larger Map Size - Page 3

128x128, which I think is what most people who want "macro maps" want.

On January 19 2011 11:12 neobowman wrote:
I'm writing this because 1, I'm bored and 2, I want to get rid of a common misconception people have.

As people have seen in the GSL maps, the mapmakers obviously tried to increase the size in comparison to the GSL maps. I'm sure most people understood why they did this. To a point, the other iCCup mapmakers as well as myself, tried to do the same thing, make our maps a larger size to accomodate a more macro-centric playstyle. In testing however, this has shown several huge problems.

To get the credentials out of the way, I'm a 2600 master's league Zerg player (I barely play enough to keep my bonus pool at 0), and a mapmaker for iCCup as you probably have extrapolated by now. I made melee maps in Brood War as well and (unrelated) am a huge fan of Jaedong Oz.

Many people blindly assume that "Smaller maps = cheese. Bigger maps = less cheese = more macro = better games." To a certain point, they are correct. The small maps that Blizzard made are pretty ridiculous. As a Zerg player, playing on Steppes, Delta, or close positions meta/LT against a Terran or Toss is just stupid. Because of the short distances, even if you don't die to an early rush, you're still set wayyyyy back in the later game. The problem comes when you try to solve this problem by expanding the map.

Blizzard balanced the game around maps the size of Lost Temple or Metalopolis. Once you start to get significantly over that margin (which from experience, I have found to be 144x144 or so), the map becomes greatly imbalanced.

In StarCraft: Brood War, a general rule was that Zerg benifited from long rush distances because they can drone up more before having to make units to respond to a Terran or Protoss attack. The same principle goes into StarCraft II because the larva mechanic of the Zerg is still present, though slightly altered with the Queen. I can't talk about Terran vs Protoss as much because I don't play either and don't understand the matchup as well, but a longer rush distance favours Zerg over Terran and Protoss. Just look at why Terrans and Protoss hate playing Zerg on cross position 4 player maps (Minus Delta) or on Scrap Station.

Some may bring up the point of "Warp-In" for Protoss. Being able to make units anywhere on the map with warpgates. Yes, this is a benifit, but not nearly as much as the larva mechanic. Late-game Protoss armies cannot consist entirely of units warped in at the scene of the battle. The army is generally slow and static because you can't warp in 50 units at once, and you can't warp in colossi or immortals. In the early game, you can benifit for things such as the 6 warp gate or 4 warpgate push, but these are merely early game timing pushes that can be done with any length between bases anyway.

Now, an interesting thing I've heard about is Terrans making more than 1 orbital command per base on larger maps, taking advantage of the longer rush distance. This, I cannot say for certain, but I am relatively sure that it does not make a difference. The time it takes for an orbital to pay for itself, and the time it takes for a drone to pay for itself is worlds apart, not to mention the Zerg can just expand again if a Terran makes an extra orbital (Assuming the map does not have like 2 expansions for each side).

Creep spread is also not a problem. Ever play a Zerg player who goes mutalisks? Mutalisks don't tend to get speed boosts from creep. Also, speed doesn't really matter if you have vision of the map like Zerg should with overlords and zerglings.

Tl;Dr: Yes, larger maps are needed, but not by much. If you go overboard like some of the GSL maps (cough, Tal'darim thingy and Aiur thingy), then it's just overwhelmingly Zerg favoured. I know this from experience of having played both these GSL maps, and some maps I made myself back around the beta when I had no idea of this concept in SC2.

On January 19 2011 14:25 monitor wrote:


Shakuras: 128x128

Keep in mind these are map sizes of the GSL maps-

Tal'Darim Altar: 176x176
Auir Garden: 156x156
Biohazard: 143x132 (symmetry off 1hex)

The OP is not saying maps 128x128 are too big. He's saying 136x136 or 144x144+ is too big.

No I don't have trouble with balancing out my worker/army ratio. And I definitely don't have problems working off 5 bases as I'm Zerg and I love to play heavy macro. I just think it is stupid to have maps as big as the size some of the GSL maps do. I would like maps more the size of Lost Temple or Metalopolis as I believe those are balanced really well, and just the right size, you don't need (much) more.

On January 19 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote:
Actually, 144x144 or bigger maps combined with a bigger supply cap could definitely return the macro skill cap to BW levels.

On January 19 2011 14:25 monitor wrote:


Shakuras: 128x128

Keep in mind these are map sizes of the GSL maps-

Tal'Darim Altar: 176x176
Auir Garden: 156x156
Biohazard: 143x132 (symmetry off 1hex)

The OP is not saying maps 128x128 are too big. He's saying 136x136 or 144x144+ is too big.

On January 19 2011 14:22 jamesmax wrote:
LOL, anyone that says they are too big is just scared to actually have to control multiple armies ya'll are probably just trying to deathball the whole map every-time, played a few games on these maps watched a few games on these maps and they were by far the most entertaining games I've seen action everywhere on the map controlling multiple forces harassing looked like a bw game even, tldr its not like they'll end up in the ladder anyways so what do you all care.

But its not =| they are awesome to play on by far the funnest and best late games.

On January 19 2011 14:25 monitor wrote:
Shakuras: 128x128

Keep in mind these are map sizes of the GSL maps-

Tal'Darim Altar: 176x176
Auir Garden: 156x156
Biohazard: 143x132 (symmetry off 1hex)

The OP is not saying maps 128x128 are too big. He's saying 136x136 or 144x144+ is too big.

On January 19 2011 11:53 Lythox wrote:
I've played one of the big new GSL maps. To be honest, it wasn't even fun playing on it, I hated it. It's so big you just can't organise things in your head and it's not like you're gonna run that many bases either as you need supply for an army. Besides that it's just plain lame to have to keep track of all the hundreds of expansions just to make sure your opponent didn't sneak in a hidden expansion 5 lightyears away from you. In my opinion maps the size of Lost Temple are PERFECT. They have to fix the close position spawning though, it's almost impossible to have a macro game if that happens.