Consequences of a Larger Map Size - Page 8

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 11:49 AlphaIIOmega wrote:
You are correct in your speculation but INCORRECT in your logic that big maps aren't good. Of course zerg are favored on the big maps. Zerg are overpowered. Now, I'm not just going to blindly comment that zerg are OP; I will explain exactly why this is so and how to fix it:

On small maps where zerg have to 14 gas 14 pool first, they are held in check. But on maps where zerg can go 14-15 hatch safely because of long rush distances, zerg are absolutely overpowered. This is because on an infinitely large map, zerg can grow their economy faster than the other 2 races if left to build JUST workers/expansions/macro units.

What you fail to acknowledge is that zerg need a nerf AFTER the maps get bigger. Easy balance process:

-make all maps as large or larger than LT
-make MINIMUM rush distance on all competitive maps equal to LT cross positions rush distance
-nerf zerg opening: Hatchery costs 350 and queen costs 200.

Bam, you have balance.




Another problem with map making is that Blizz made protos incredibly OP in certain positions. I think morrow mentioned that a good map needs a balance of open space and narrower passages. Too many choke points will cause protoss to dominate.

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.

On January 20 2011 05:07 Ansinjunger wrote:


The supply cap is actually kind of low for maps that are too large. The protoss "deathball" isn't just something bad players do; it's simply how protoss are strongest at the moment, because of sentries and unit size (and the vulnerability of HT and colossi and all that jazz). Also, because of the supply cap, I seriously doubt protoss can support two separate "deathballs" that wouldn't get easily surrounded and picked off on ultra large maps. Take it to an extreme where Zerg can relatively easily get up 10 bases and 120 drones (just throwing those numbers out there). You can probably just spam mutalisks, broodlords, and static defense and make horribly cost inefficient attacks until you finally wear down the toss. That sounds like an awfully boring and exhausting game, no matter how much macro skills are required to do that.

It's true.

I beat a diamond player on one of teh GSL maps. I was playing zerg (I rarely play them) P.S I'm in GOLD.

These maps need to be balanced a bit better. They're FAR TOO large.

On January 20 2011 04:15 Reborn8u wrote:
I think terran and protoss just need radically different approaches to huge maps. These maps allow EVERY race to take a natural almost as fast as zerg. BW style mech play is pretty strong on these maps, take a really fast 2nd. Get some tanks and bunkers and take a really fast 3rd. Add lots of missile turrets and consider getting the upgrades for them. You will be able to support a lot of factories like this. Mobility is very important on these maps also. Hellion harass and prism harass are crucial. Drops, and air play in general shine. Toss needs to play more like zerg on these maps, play very greedy and take a ton of expos. Use warp ins all over the place. I think it will just take some strategy evolution, I completely disagree that these maps automatically are imbalanced because of size. They are full of tight chokes and easily defendable bases, it requires a different style of play than what everyone has become accustomed to. All ins are much weaker. Zergs playing there normal style will smash terran and toss playing their normal ways one these maps. That doesn't mean there is imbalance, only a learning curve to adapt to them imo.

On January 20 2011 07:15 oppS wrote:
Terran has no late game.

Bigger maps = less powerful timing attack from Terran (long to reinforce).

Terran race as a whole is weaker in larger maps, and if we switch to ONLY large maps--as a T player, I will cry more often.

On January 19 2011 11:22 Kujawa wrote:
i don't quite know where ur going with this? i didn't see your point.