EPTShakuras: 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.
Consequences of a Larger Map Size - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
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. | ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
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. I used to think like you, but I now believe that Zerg macro and mobility in late game could easily be fixed by a few changes. 1). Make dropships and warp-prism faster to compete with Zerg mobility. 2). Buff HSM and Mothership so that Protoss and Terran can compete with Zerg swarm in the late game. 4 quick changes that wouldn't change the balance of the MU on small maps and which would totally balance the game for larger maps | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
jamesmax
Canada72 Posts
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. But its not =| they are awesome to play on by far the funnest and best late games. | ||
|
jgreen46
Canada94 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
charlie420247
United States692 Posts
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. anyone who claims lost temple is balanced really well and just the right size loses all credibility with me. | ||
|
Jeby
United States20 Posts
| ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
If the map takes too long to get across then it will just be a turtle fest with Terrans going Mass Orbitals, Protoss getting 200/200 vr colossus deathball while Zerg goes for 300 food push with infinite larvas and resources saved up with no battles happening before that. It might seem fun for now because its fresh but sooner or later it will get very dry. | ||
|
QuothTheRaven
United States5524 Posts
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. I'd like to see Blizzard experiment with this in HotS beta. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
Not to say that a size increase is something I'm against, just that I'm in accordance with the OP in that it shouldn't be taken to the extreme. | ||
|
Turgid
United States1623 Posts
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. To be fair though, the reaction to Taldarim Altar in particular hasn't actually been that great. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
Strategies on the current map pool has changed and these are maps people have been using for months (obviously patches have changed a lot as well). We don't know what a balanced map looks like yet. | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
| ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
On January 19 2011 14:57 I_Love_Bacon wrote: While theory crafting is unavoidable, people have to really, really understand they don't know what they're talking about right now. We haven't see a bunch of games on large, new maps. We don't know how races are going to shake out and respond to larger maps, so assuming something will be op/up at the moment is 100% pure speculation. Strategies on the current map pool has changed and these are maps people have been using for months (obviously patches have changed a lot as well). We don't know what a balanced map looks like yet. And I do agree with this as well. We are conjecturing right now, and dont actually have solid facts to back our concerns. Id rather experiment possible imbalances due to larger maps than having to deal with these abusive strats that are far too common due to smaller maps. | ||
|
Essentia
1150 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
Anyway, large maps might be imbalanced the way the game is currently played, but I don't think the imbalance is large enough to be removed with playstyle adjustments. | ||
|
-Exalt-
United States972 Posts
think about it. i would say the majority of metal games in far positions in a ZvP or ZvT match up are really, really great games. they tend to be long, but don't overly favor the zerg because they aren't too long. the key, is the expansion set up. being able to expand AWAY from your opponent doesn't just favor zerg.. it favors every race to macro, take thirds and fourths, and get to those long awesome games when the majority of maps are designed in such away, when it's not ridiculously hard to get a 3rd and 4th like on jungle basin, only then will I know that the map devs truely understand how this game is meant to be played and how the maps are meant to be set up. | ||
|
Frugalicious
United States121 Posts
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. You seem to leave out that GSL matches and possible other tournament matches will include those maps. If games become overly passive macro oriented, which is unappealing to the masses, then SC2 would lose viewer-ship if they become too prevalent (again, similar to all the close-position, early game all-ins as seen in GSL3). NR20 minute games are not fun to watch and are encouraged by excessively large maps that reward passive macro games. Versatile maps for all races such as Xel Naga and Shakuras have often produced the most popular matches to watch. But its not =| they are awesome to play on by far the funnest and best late games. You don't seem to realize that your opinion is subjective. 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. Evidence that Shakuras is medium-sized relative to the new maps. Wish people like Turgid would stop being wrong =/ | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
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. Man, if you can't organise things then it's your fault and because you are still bad. Imo small maps favours bad players because cheese and all ins works much better, they don't need to have a lot bases so it's easier for them to play. Yes huge maps tend to be more boring to watch but it all depends on players themselfs. I have seen many fast paced games on shakuras cross which are just beautiful to watch. What about zerg being OP on big maps it's again depends on opponent. If the terran going to wait until zerg gets maxed army with 5k/5k in bank then of course he is gonna loose. | ||
| ||
