|
having no experience with mapmaking myself, whats wrong with simply solutions like making forward late game expansions? large maps won't just remove the zerg requirement for a base advantage, it might even put pressure on it because terran and protoss can also expand a little safer due to the limitations large maps place on creep.
if we just put the third 1/5th away from a spawn and the 4th and 5th 1/3rd away, that's 40% of the map protoss and terran don't have to travel along to fight on 3 base and thats a map where protoss and terran can primarily concern themselves with defending against speedling in the early game.
i dont mean to imply this is a novel idea, i'm just looking for someone to explain away a bit of personal ignorance on the topic. my only exprience with sc2 mapmaking is making terrain and then raging out when discovering the actual playable edge of the map wasnt anywhere close to the edge i had designed it for.
|
On January 20 2011 00:24 Nobu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 17:15 iEchoic wrote:
Edit: as a sidenote, anyone who says "well you can expand and macro too" doesn't understand the way Starcraft 2 works. Namely, zerg can produce workers 3-5 times faster than you and that is impossible to compete with if you cannot apply sufficient pressure. Are you completly sure? As i written in other post, someone shown that with a 14/15 nexus vs 14/15 hatch, protoss would have more probes until a certain point, like 6-7 minutes. I think that everyone is scared just because the builds that you use right now seems to be garbage in that maps, but i dont think that anyone can talk about imbalances until protoss and terrans start figuring out macro BOs and bringing number about why the economy of Zerg is far superior. As I said for protoss, someone tested it out, and realized that a nexus first is even better than a hatch first, so just try with terran, maybe 14 CC 13 rax double orbital, I suxx at terran so i dont know, but I think that this needs a couple of weeks before saying that Zerg is OP in bigger maps, its indeed if you try to not proxy 2 rax, or make a timing push that works on steppes, its obviously not going to work on a map 3x bigger. (Im low/mid master league zerg and I know you are better than me so your point wasnt bad, but i think that macro BOs for T and P could be as powerful as the zerg ones)
Go take a zerg practice buddy and tell him you won't attack him. Tell him to 14 hatch and spend all his larva on overlords, drones, and queens. You go ahead and make as many probes as you want as fast as you can. Then after 10 minutes, exit the game, and look at the income graph. If your zerg player has any idea what he's doing at all, his econ is going to demolish yours. Give it a try.
Obviously in a real game that wouldn't happen, but it's an upper bound, and as maps get bigger, they approach that point.
On January 20 2011 08:56 Signum wrote:
having no experience with mapmaking myself, whats wrong with simply solutions like making forward late game expansions? large maps won't just remove the zerg requirement for a base advantage, it might even put pressure on it because terran and protoss can also expand a little safer due to the limitations large maps place on creep.
if we just put the third 1/5th away from a spawn and the 4th and 5th 1/3rd away, that's 40% of the map protoss and terran don't have to travel along to fight on 3 base and thats a map where protoss and terran can primarily concern themselves with defending against speedling in the early game.
i dont mean to imply this is a novel idea, i'm just looking for someone to explain away a bit of personal ignorance on the topic. my only exprience with sc2 mapmaking is making terrain and then raging out when discovering the actual playable edge of the map wasnt anywhere close to the edge i had designed it for.
Zerg mechanics favor large maps:
1) Zerg has the most mobile army. This is a benefit on larger maps because it makes backstabs more powerful, and it allows easier defense of multiple bases.
2) Zerg creep is more powerful the more time and area it has.
3) Good zerg players will drone as much as they can and then produce as late as possible. This is often done by keeping units outside the opponent's base and then producing as much as possible when they move out to attack. The larger the map gets, the more time they have to produce and the more greedy they can be, both furthering their economic and military power.
No matter how the expos are laid out, these three things will be intact. If you rely on a close 3rd or 4th base, the zerg player will have a much better economy due to the above points.
|
finding out how much a zerg can produce with no need to make units is meaningless. a disadvantage they have is any given larva can only be one or the other.
pressure isn't impossible to put on on larger maps, though you will probably have to be more careful. more careful in your base as you can't run your units back, and more careful with your push because you can't supply backup as easily or retreat.
this just seems like a lot of panic for nothing. t and p may need to be a bit more careful, that's all.
I play T and I will win games vs zerg that I actually feel bad about. I can throw my mech army into their creep over and over and lose it all, but as long as I take their army with me they can't ever produce more drones while I'm making scvs the whole time. I just keep throwing the army at them (while of course scouting and denying expands) and they can't keep up almost no matter what they produce (talking about steppes/meta on close positions/etc.)
|
How does big maps favours creep spread? I mean you will need much more time to spread creep in big map and then after opponent's push is incoming he will just clear every single creep tumor until your natural so all time you put on creep spreading was killed in 20 seconds.
|
On January 20 2011 18:59 Vari wrote:
finding out how much a zerg can produce with no need to make units is meaningless. a disadvantage they have is any given larva can only be one or the other.
My point isn't that that's going to happen in a game, my point is that zerg has the highest unbounded worker production, and that is restricted only by the pressure you put on them. As maps get bigger, it becomes harder to apply pressure because defender's advantage increases.
I play T and I will win games vs zerg that I actually feel bad about. I can throw my mech army into their creep over and over and lose it all, but as long as I take their army with me they can't ever produce more drones while I'm making scvs the whole time. I just keep throwing the army at them (while of course scouting and denying expands) and they can't keep up almost no matter what they produce (talking about steppes/meta on close positions/etc.)
That changes once you play people who are good, good zerg players won't let you just throw mech repeatedly into them and win.
On January 20 2011 19:00 Alpina wrote:
How does big maps favours creep spread? I mean you will need much more time to spread creep in big map and then after opponent's push is incoming he will just clear every single creep tumor until your natural so all time you put on creep spreading was killed in 20 seconds.
Creep takes forever to recede on this game. If you deal with their attack in a reasonable amount of time you just plop tumors back down. Creep is more important vs T than P anyway because most people use scans - ravens are very costly and take valuable starport time.
|
On January 20 2011 19:01 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 18:59 Vari wrote:
finding out how much a zerg can produce with no need to make units is meaningless. a disadvantage they have is any given larva can only be one or the other. My point isn't that that's going to happen in a game, my point is that zerg has the highest unbounded worker production, and that is restricted only by the pressure you put on them. As maps get bigger, it becomes harder to apply pressure because defender's advantage increases. Show nested quote +I play T and I will win games vs zerg that I actually feel bad about. I can throw my mech army into their creep over and over and lose it all, but as long as I take their army with me they can't ever produce more drones while I'm making scvs the whole time. I just keep throwing the army at them (while of course scouting and denying expands) and they can't keep up almost no matter what they produce (talking about steppes/meta on close positions/etc.) That changes once you play people who are good, good zerg players won't let you just throw mech repeatedly into them and win. Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 19:00 Alpina wrote:
How does big maps favours creep spread? I mean you will need much more time to spread creep in big map and then after opponent's push is incoming he will just clear every single creep tumor until your natural so all time you put on creep spreading was killed in 20 seconds. Creep takes forever to recede on this game. If you deal with their attack in a reasonable amount of time you just plop tumors back down.
fair enough but I'm high diamond and still able to pull it off. I'm not remotely saying I'm great but I shouldn't be able to get away with that against people of equal skill level right? it doesn't seem appropriate.
no matter how bad I am I'm facing people of my own skill level if the system works. so it's the map that's allowing me to play that sloppily. that's my point.
|
On January 20 2011 19:04 Vari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 19:01 iEchoic wrote:On January 20 2011 18:59 Vari wrote:
finding out how much a zerg can produce with no need to make units is meaningless. a disadvantage they have is any given larva can only be one or the other. My point isn't that that's going to happen in a game, my point is that zerg has the highest unbounded worker production, and that is restricted only by the pressure you put on them. As maps get bigger, it becomes harder to apply pressure because defender's advantage increases. I play T and I will win games vs zerg that I actually feel bad about. I can throw my mech army into their creep over and over and lose it all, but as long as I take their army with me they can't ever produce more drones while I'm making scvs the whole time. I just keep throwing the army at them (while of course scouting and denying expands) and they can't keep up almost no matter what they produce (talking about steppes/meta on close positions/etc.) That changes once you play people who are good, good zerg players won't let you just throw mech repeatedly into them and win. On January 20 2011 19:00 Alpina wrote:
How does big maps favours creep spread? I mean you will need much more time to spread creep in big map and then after opponent's push is incoming he will just clear every single creep tumor until your natural so all time you put on creep spreading was killed in 20 seconds. Creep takes forever to recede on this game. If you deal with their attack in a reasonable amount of time you just plop tumors back down. fair enough but I'm high diamond and still able to pull it off. I'm not remotely saying I'm great but I shouldn't be able to get away with that against people of equal skill level right? it doesn't seem appropriate. no matter how bad I am I'm facing people of my own skill level if the system works. so it's the map that's allowing me to play that sloppily. that's my point.
Metal close positions and steppes are definitely T favored. But this works in both directions, and stuff like Metal cross favors Zerg, and crazy maps like Gardens of Aiur are even more Z favored.
Also, the game isn't balanced at all levels of play. There are certain skill levels where certain races dominate. For example, protoss dominates the mid-masters level because that's approximately the skill level where everyone 4gates and most people don't have the timings down to defend it appropriately. I feel that Zerg has a strong advantage vs T at high masters because of the large mechanical skill required to marine split while targeting tanks on banelings and macroing, etc. This is around the point where Zs have near-perfect sling/bling/muta builds and T has huge mechanical requirements to fight it. However, this evens out higher up at the pro level, where this mechanical skill is commonplace. In the diamond level, I definitely feel like T has an advantage over Z because most Ts at this level have the pre-requisite skill to make a huge ball of crap and move with it, and Z takes a lot of knowledge about timings to defend these things, which aren't established yet.
The end goal is for the game to be balanced at a pro level. This means that you can eliminate any imbalance by increasing in skill. Unfortunately, that means that other races may dominate at certain points through the skill spectrum.
|
Creep takes forever to recede on this game. If you deal with their attack in a reasonable amount of time you just plop tumors back down. Creep is more important vs T than P anyway because most people use scans - ravens are very costly and take valuable starport time.
So you want to say you cleaned like 20+ creep tumors and I will take my 5 queens and going all over the map putting creep tumors? xD
Anyway my point was that on big maps it's harder to spread creep (obviously) and creep is really needed for all zerg ground army, so big maps does not favour creep spreading.
|
On January 20 2011 19:09 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +Creep takes forever to recede on this game. If you deal with their attack in a reasonable amount of time you just plop tumors back down. Creep is more important vs T than P anyway because most people use scans - ravens are very costly and take valuable starport time. So you want to say you cleaned like 20+ creep tumors and I will take my 5 queens and going all over the map putting creep tumors? xD Anyway my point was that on big maps it's harder to spread creep (obviously) and creep is really needed for all zerg ground army, so big maps does not favour creep spreading.
PvZ you may be right. But speaking from a TvZ perspective, killing a ton of creep tumors either takes a lot of scans (in which case it was worthwhile anyway), or forces ravens to be built, which are very expensive and cost ineffective and cut into starport time (and almost always die because of their poor range and slow speed). I'm a T player so I'm biased towards TvZ in these discussions.
|
yeah echoic I didn't mean it didn't go both ways, and maps can certainly get too big, I think I'd just rather see it in play after seeing so many that I feel may be too small.
thanks for your input on the matchups/divisions.
|
On January 20 2011 19:16 Vari wrote:
I think I'd just rather see it in play after seeing so many that I feel may be too small.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see long games, and I think huge maps are better for spectating and increase the skill required to play. The new GSL maps are actually awesome. But I do honestly think that the game isn't balanced to be played on maps like that, which is what the thread is about... If the thread was "how badass-looking at the new GSL maps" I'd be all positive.
|
On January 20 2011 19:17 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 19:16 Vari wrote:
I think I'd just rather see it in play after seeing so many that I feel may be too small. Don't get me wrong, I love to see long games, and I think huge maps are better for spectating and increase the skill required to play. The new GSL maps are actually awesome. But I do honestly think that the game isn't balanced to be played on maps like that, which is what the thread is about... If the thread was "how badass-looking at the new GSL maps" I'd be all positive.
I agree. I think there's a happy medium (shakuras/metal cross positions/xelnaga probably come closest imo) and hopefully we will get there.
|
On January 19 2011 11:29 Pl4t0 wrote:
As BeMannerDuPenner said, it's simply far too early to judge these things, and this is largely pure speculation on the OP's part.
I would say that it is just an application of common sense and fully agree with the OP. Larger maps are necessary, but not too large maps.
"Balancing" the units exclusively is a bad idea, because the units are over- or underpowered according to the situation and their effectiveness is totally influenced by the map.
Example 1
Sieged tanks are totally overpowered if all you have is Zerglings, but adjusting the damage of the tanks so that Zerglings can deal with that is a bad idea IMO. You simply arent supposed to charge in there with pure melee, but on small maps that is all you can do - if you are not switching to air. Steppes of War with its one assault path through the center is the prime example here and there isnt a chance to "go around the tanks in the middle" unless you are using risky Nydus Worms or Overlord drops.
[In this example "tank" stands for any kind of defensive unit since Terrans have no cheap static defense.]
Example 2
On a larger map you will eventually reach the point where a Terran needs to defend more than one base and this means he either has undefended bases and all his units attacking or "a lower concentration of tanks" than is usual right now. With a lower concentration the "nerf" from 60 to 35+15 damage might not have been necessary and thus the maps "influence the numbers of the units". Speed changes affect a unit on a larger map much more than on a smaller map because a faster unit might have been "useful" on a large map, whereas small maps practically negate immobility disadvantages.
The major point of larger maps is that they simply delay early aggression and that is one thing which made the game somewhat boring / hard for Zerg and which made some changes to units and mechanics necessary to "fix it".
|
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.
So zerg can take a FE with less risk. What stops P or T from going Nexus/CC first? Give the maps some time.
|
On January 20 2011 06:10 Fizbin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 05:07 Ansinjunger wrote: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. 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. umm just throwing those numbers out there makes ur argument contradictory. for example if a zerg gets 120 drones its army will be pitiful. ur never going to want more then around 90 drones. or your army wont be able to trade even 50% cost effective. only exception to this is as terran with mules. who after getting enough orbital’s they can suicide half there miners. and make their 200 army much better. and again as toss ur never going to want more then 94 or so workers. it cuts into your army to much. i get what ur trying to say using static defence but it wouldnt be cost effective at ALL for a zerg. as well as make it way to easy for the protoss too just 1a and win with a few void rays stalkers and collossi. static defence is moot in sc2
The point was not for you to argue my arbitrary numbers, but that the supply cap limits the ability of protoss to make more than one blob of death.
|
Larger maps change the metagame, and therefore change the perceived balance of the various matchups.
If the larger GSL Candidate maps are introduced, Zerg will absolutely dominate for a period of time. Then the metagame will evolve and it will even out.
|
On January 19 2011 17:04 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 16:58 ReachTheSky wrote: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. i really feel like a hatchery should just cost 400 minerals. i mean come on, it can produce any unit and doubles as base lol. other race's home cost 400. zerg should cost the same. It does cost 40050 - minerals for the drone 300 - for the hatchery building 50 - minerals to remake the drone that was just lost = 400 minerals total
Man, your math is amazing.
Anyway, on larger maps, I'm pretty sure protoss can keep up with a zerg economy when they have the freedom to 15nexus, at least up to the ~40 drone mark, if they focus their chronoboosts on probes.
Also, i know that the "sizes" of the maps are not always as big as they appear - how big is the playable area on, say, GSL Terminus Re? How bout the rush distances [measured in worker-seconds]?
|
On January 19 2011 17:04 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 16:58 ReachTheSky wrote: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. i really feel like a hatchery should just cost 400 minerals. i mean come on, it can produce any unit and doubles as base lol. other race's home cost 400. zerg should cost the same. It does cost 40050 - minerals for the drone 300 - for the hatchery building 50 - minerals to remake the drone that was just lost = 400 minerals total
That math is wrong, you're double counting the drone, but hatcheries are arguably MORE expensive than command centers since a hatchery only gives 2 supply but a CC gives 11 supply. So you could say:
50 - drone
300 - hatch
100 - overlord
= 450 minerals and now you have new base, 10 supply
aux: (17 seconds lost mining time rebuilding drone)
terran:
400 minerals - command center
= 400 minerals and now you have a new base, 11 supply
aux: (100 seconds of lost mining time)
If you consider the lost mining time, they're overall pretty close in cost per value which isn't even really necessary because they're different. In fact there are legitimate reasons to build more hatches and CC's than you have bases, but so far I've never seen someone so desperate for chrono boost that they've built and extra nexus.
A nexus by the way is the cheapest expansion in a sense since it gives 10 supply and a new base at 0 lost mining time so it really is 400 minerals.
Anyways, all this analysis is pretty stupid, different races are different, if you don't like it, go play the original warcraft and place everything next to your cobbled road.
|
I would disagree, on Auir garden or w/e. ( in ZvP at least ) me and my buddy played this map around 10 times an di only beat him once, though i regularly beat him on blizz ladder maps. Due to the fact that zerg cannot stay 1 base ahead ( 2 free explains ) and if you power drone the way you need to, you don't have enough units to break down the rocks. I think adding rocks to EVERY EXPANSION that isn't the natual is the wrong way to do it, maybe the 4th or other expos like golds ect.
|
If Starcraft 1 is capable of having large maps, so should SC2. If that cannot be allowed to happen then there is something wrong with the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
