|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Doldy.jpg)
For those of you are not familiar with Brood War, this was the most popular 3v3/4v4 map, Big Game Hunters.
Look at this gorgeous map closely. Every player spawned in a random location. Note how certain positions are engineered to have natural tension with other positions, and how the expansion distribution and positioning is different for every base. Some bases have more space to fit buildings in, with a drawback of having to share an expo with another base. Other bases may have their own natural, only to have it be harder to wall off. "Balance" was something to be overcome by strategy, befitting an RTS.
This is how games felt then:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wiJFc.jpg)
The Problem
Consider now maps such as Outpost:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HyN87.jpg)
This is what it feels like to play on this map:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dBSDa.jpg)
With very little exception, the 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 map pool follow this pattern of an already-split map with easily defended mutual chokes.
Implications:
1. Less need for adaptability
In SC2, you will never think to yourself: "Interesting. I see our opponents have decided to attack through the only viable attack path." The most you would consider at the beginning of the game is their races, and maybe worry a bit more if you are on one of the outside bases in a 4v4.
On the old maps, the considerations were far more numerous. A juicy target such as a teching protoss would become a terrible choice for an attack if he was far away from you, or if you had a zerg or two near you. Or or or, if you had a base with an easily secured expo, suddenly it became viable to sneak it in earlier than your opponents would expect. If you had a position that was easily cliffed by siege tanks... you get the idea. The current emphasis on perfectly symmetrical maps is a crutch.
Far more options were available each game and we enjoyed a higher skill ceiling for teamwork. There were countless scenarios to master, various permutations to be aware of on a single map. Good decision-making paid off many times more.
2. Reduced role of the individual
BGH games (or any BW multiplayer map, really, because of randomized spawns) often devolved into multiple simultaneous 1v1s or 2v2s all over the map. The ability to gather armies despite the chaos all over became a valuable skill in itself. The current shared base trend is like the No Child Left Behind movement of Starcraft.
Let us consider what it is like if you are the only one on your team that wants to attack early in SC2. You get to your target's base, and at the very least you are met with a 1v2 scenario in a 4v4. Their allies are just an expo or two away and in no time your heroic attack is destroyed by all 4 of them. Their units were going to be there anyway - it took no planning on their part to roflstomp your attack.
In Brood War, your decision to be the aggressor would mean that every member of the other team would have to move their units around the map to help, some quite far. Your allies could intercept or counter-attack. The defender's advantage is no longer overwhelming, and one player's actions may demand very drastic decisions from every other player. There is more opportunity to force errors in your opponents' play, and if there is a misstep or over-extension by anybody all players would have to react accordingly. This makes for more dynamic and fast-paced games, instead of both sides massing and then a-moving.
3. Limit on playstyle
These maps cater to complete beginners, who have a fucking blast simply not dying and stay in the game. That's fine, I really appreciate some of these maps every now and then too. The consequence of EVERY map being like this though is that any competent player is forced into playing out the same scenarios over and over.
The expected avenues of attack are obvious, and there is little tactical maneuvering besides holding 2 chokes. As a result, posturing your army, and scaring individual players doesn't matter as much. Everything is focused around those one or two pivotal large-scale battles, and from there the game is already basically decided.
Team play is amazing. I only play with people I know, so I think of it mostly as a chat room, except with units and stuff. It's fun seeing peoples' personalities come out in all the decisions they are forced to make. SC2's implementation of matchmaking, shared control and resources has been awesome, but I can't get rid of the sense that something is terribly wrong.
If you love team play and have only experienced it in SC2, you have been missing out.
This is something I feel very strongly about, since these are basically the only maps I play anymore. Here is what to take away from this post: At the VERY least, randomized spawns are necessary to for truly intricate team games.
Obligatory poll:
Poll: What do you think?Non-shared base maps sound really fun. (227) 66% Non-shared base maps would be too difficult. (67) 19% Randomized spawns on shared-base maps! (28) 8% Shared base maps are good enough as they are. (24) 7% 346 total votes Your vote: What do you think? (Vote): Non-shared base maps would be too difficult.
(Vote): Non-shared base maps sound really fun.
(Vote): Shared base maps are good enough as they are.
(Vote): Randomized spawns on shared-base maps!
|
I'm not too sure myself
Good:
-Shared bases means easier defending (i.e. faster wall, more defending units), thus less viable cheese=good.
-Easy coordination (can push out as team) as opposed to split up forces in BGH
-Easier expansions (can take your team's naturals much more safely than BGH's)
-In BGH, if you were isolated by 3 enemy bases (i.e. you're 6 oclock while your enemies are at 7 and 5 oclock), you would find yourself gang-raped from every angle
Bad:
-Long games devolve into whoever has more void rays/mutalisks/thors
-Harassment is very hard to pull off (although in 4v4 people don't know how to deal with harass :D)
-Know where your opponent is even without scouting (this also applied to 4v4 BGH/Fastest)
-Extra-large ramps are bitches
-No infinite resource maps (what was blizzard thinking???)
|
ya i think it's just blizzard saying "we hate cool maps" so they put ones like this in...
|
the example you cite is actually a split base no mutual choke map and i have been playing it with my AT partner as a dual 1v1 and we are having much success on it.
here's the problem with split base tho, my friend, cheese. if u played lots of 2v2 u would know that if u were on that tiny desert tileset with 2 elevated watchtowers and split base (arid wastes)? that is now gone, any sort of ling/X cheese would ruin one person with the ally unable to reinforce. the result was over 90% of those games involved some kind of sling/rine rush or the ever popular overlord/proxy pylon sling warp gate rush. these sort of strats are too difficult to stop without a mutual choke and shared base and the more angles of attack/openings there are and the farther the bases the more ubiquitious the early game aggression, hence why maps like arid waste and war zone were awful and maps like twilight fortress were awesome. anyway i don't play 3s or higher so i can't comment on that but baically the map you cite in an example and appear to dislike actually is the PROPER way to do 2v2 split bases and arid wastes was NOT.
oops, the map you're citing is not the new 2s map i'm talking about, but looks like a 4:4 with similar architecture and split 2/2. regardless ya, the map needs to be split in team games or the team with a more "condensed" spawn will def. have a huge advantage.
|
I voted that non-shared would be really fun.
BUT I have one BIG caveat: It has to be random spawns. The few maps that are currently single-base suffer from a huge drawback. What has happened to me 100000 times (especially that one 3v3 map where one ally sticks out farther for some weird reason), is that all 3 team up and go destroy the separated player, then promptly retreat back to their side. Our team is out of position, can't save them, and then the game progresses as a 2v3.
The reason this didn't happen so much on BGH is because people spawned randomly. All the bases weren't ALL the way on the other side of the map. If all 4 team up on one guy, I could just go next door and kill one of the guys. So could my teammate. All of the sudden, their gimmicky 4 person all-in results in them losing 2-3 teammates as we let ours go as a sacrifice.
There needs to be random spawns for non-shared bases. The way the maps are now, with 2 groups of bases across from each other, the bases HAVE to be shared or else one person gets killed/crippled by a triple/quadruple rush and the opponents retreat before we can counter-attack.
I want BGH back!
|
I would love to see random spawn team game maps. I played a ton of these kinds of games in BW, and there was a lot more variety and activity in the game.
|
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts).
|
How many team games did you play in SC2? Non-shared bases means you lose people instantly to any kind of mass t1 allin + lings. Outpost is actually a great map btw since you can still rush but it's still defendable and later on the expo positions can lead to the game being spli into 2 seperate 2v2s.
Also the poll is biased, non-shared bases wouldn't be "too difficult", it would just dumb 4v4 down into mass lings + x, kinda like 2v2 and 3v3 mostly already is.
|
I've been doing nothing but 2v2 lately, and I've grown to really like the shared base maps. Or, to word it differently: the closer we are the better. However, I don't know if this is because I simply like the shared base play style, or if it's because aggression in SC2 comes so much faster than in BW, and so heavily, it feels like whoever attacks first wins when the bases aren't shared.
Just as defending an attack in BW took more organization among the team, so did making a joint attack.
On March 02 2011 11:18 carbon_based wrote:
here's the problem with split base tho, my friend, cheese.
Precisely my feeling. So I don't know if the joint base play is more fun, but it sure feels mandatory right now. "Bigger maps" seems to be everyone's answer to everything now days, but I can't help but think that would be the case here as well. I definitely agree with intrigue's general point: The games on Hunters and the like were much more interesting than the games I'm having on current 2v2 maps. Maybe joint bases are part of the reason, but I think they're the only counter to dual early game aggression on these size of maps.
|
On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts).
Are you defending blizzard's shitty map pool?
The reason he drew it as one color is because the armies (if well coordinated) become 1 massive deathball/army in shared base/non-random spawn maps. Compare this to BGH, where people end up fighting for themselves.
|
On March 02 2011 11:09 intrigue wrote:
"Balance" was something to be overcome by strategy, befitting an RTS.
i think this is the best sentence i've read on the forums here ever. And very insightful points overall.
|
Non-shared base maps make cheesy rush builds even more viable, specifically in 2v2s. 1 player can never take on 2 players in the early game. Builds like speedling/hellion or speedling/zealot are very hard to stop if one of you is zerg and you don't share chokes. In 1v1, zvz it is already hard to stop mass speedling/baneling rushes (10/11 pool) and adding in zealots/hellions makes it nearly impossible. If your teammate leaves his wall to come help you, he leaves his base completely vulnerable. And if your ally is terran, his marines are completely exposed while they run to your base.
I think the more interesting 2v2 games always occur on the shared base maps, like twilight fortress. The real problem comes down to zerg's inability to wall off, which is perfectly balanced in 1v1s, but easily exploitable in 2v2s.
|
I like outpost because i usually go for nukes there :D
something i wouldn't dare try in a map with non shared bases.
but yeah... BGH: why not?
|
Come on Blizzard, even fastest has individual bases and randomized spawns...
|
the problem with cheesing on a split base map is that the cheeser's weakened economy leaves him vulnerable to counter-attacks by the teammates that werent cheesed. if all 3 players cut workers and lose a bunch of their units just to kill one player from the other team, the remaining two players on that team will simply crush the cheesers. this will be helped out by the fact that as long as the cheesed player keeps a worker alive he will always still be in the game.
|
On March 02 2011 11:35 Cider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 11:09 intrigue wrote:
"Balance" was something to be overcome by strategy, befitting an RTS. i think this is the best sentence i've read on the forums here ever. And very insightful points overall.
Except it doesn't work this way, unless your entire team is going for mass T1 too you WILL lose people to mass speedling + 4gate/3rax/Blinkstalkers/Hellis w/e.
Strategy doesn't do anything for you in that scenario and neither does micro.
|
The big problem is when all 3 enemies attack 1 dude.
You really do need to play with friends to strategize in team games.
|
On March 02 2011 11:33 101toss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts). Are you defending blizzard's shitty map pool? The reason he drew it as one color is because the armies (if well coordinated) become 1 massive deathball/army in shared base/non-random spawn maps. Compare this to BGH, where people end up fighting for themselves.
Oh god it's you again... just read my post and you will know my thoughts on it. If that is still too difficult, then just read the first line of the second paragraph.
|
On March 02 2011 11:35 orotoss wrote:
Non-shared base maps make cheesy rush builds even more viable, specifically in 2v2s. 1 player can never take on 2 players in the early game. Builds like speedling/hellion or speedling/zealot are very hard to stop if one of you is zerg and you don't share chokes. In 1v1, zvz it is already hard to stop mass speedling/baneling rushes (10/11 pool) and adding in zealots/hellions makes it nearly impossible. If your teammate leaves his wall to come help you, he leaves his base completely vulnerable. And if your ally is terran, his marines are completely exposed while they run to your base.
I think the more interesting 2v2 games always occur on the shared base maps, like twilight fortress. The real problem comes down to zerg's inability to wall off, which is perfectly balanced in 1v1s, but easily exploitable in 2v2s.
orotoss summed it up (my opinion that is). It is way too hard to defend early game in 2v2s against aggressive (all-in) build.
I'll edit my post to add this :
I have to agree that such map (4v4 or 3v3) are uninteresting in SC2 (I agree with the 3 points you mentioned). BGH gave a lot more depth and variance in tactics than Outpost for instance. Although, I do want to emphasize on 2v2s, as I think shared base are a welcome addition. In 4v4, losing an ally is not always dramatic, as perhaps some of us are teching and hoping to do enough damage to recover from this lost.
Anyhow, I do agree that BGH play style was a lot more fun.
|
On March 02 2011 11:45 DSun wrote:
the problem with cheesing on a split base map is that the cheeser's weakened economy leaves him vulnerable to counter-attacks by the teammates that werent cheesed. if all 3 players cut workers and lose a bunch of their units just to kill one player from the other team, the remaining two players on that team will simply crush the cheesers. this will be helped out by the fact that as long as the cheesed player keeps a worker alive he will always still be in the game.
It doesn't work that way. By the time tech kicks in you will be down at least one person and the enemy will have a solid position. Unless it's some stuff like quad 6pool but that's retarded anyway.
And lol @ being in the game with 1 worker
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
