As everyone might know, maps are always a point of contention for the community, particularly Zergs. While there will always be X-favoured maps, it is probably a good idea to establish a consensus as to what makes a map especially playable. My definition of a very playable map is, from most important to least:
1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds
Things like rotational balance goes without saying. These kind of maps lean towards macro play, although a strong 2 base timing is feasible, but not mandatory. Out of a pool of 9 maps, it would be good to have 5 maps that adhere to this standard.
Now let's take a look at some of the greatest (imo) BW maps. I have chosen these maps because the first few have a long, long history of playability. Most of these maps are fan favourites too, so as to avoid excessive controversy...
You will notice that most if not all of these maps adhere to the ground rules that I have suggested (except #6 of course).
Of special note is that on most of the maps, the third is set on high ground or in an extremely enclosed area that is easy to fortify. If this is not the case, as like in Benzene, then you cannot conduct an attack into the natural without going through the third.
Also note that armies in BW tend to occupy maybe 30% more space than in SC2, and that there was a real high ground advantage in the form of a punishing miss chance.
All these factors suggest that defending territory was considerably easier in BW than in SC2. In SC2, with less time to reinforce due to many factors, and the removal of high ground advantage, it seems reasonable to conclude that even more defensive features should be incorporated into the map.
Well, this is not the case. Let's take a look at the infamous Zerg Sight, or 2-base sight, or whatever you want to call it:
Notice how open the low-ground third is. This, of course, incontrovertibly tends to lead to 2 base all-ins especially for Protoss, which I think gets boring after a while. Even supposedly "okay-ish" maps like Daybreak feature the third on low ground, with a massive path leading right into it.
Meanwhile, we have utter disasters such as Arid plateau and Metal, where the natural is not even safe, let alone the third. Then a polar opposite in Calm before the Storm, where the third is literally invulnerable.
Instead of having wildly varying maps, there should be a core set of maps that are more or less similar to what I have laid out in my 6 points. Once again, these maps disfavour all-ins, encourage taking bases at a gradual pace, but have enough opportunities to reward aggression if timed well, WITHOUT turning the game into a base trade scenario.
Then of course, we can have a few outliers that can be vetoed...such as, um,
Outlier!
A very strange map, but at least it can still be FFE-d on, so it is not that wacky and rushfest promoting.
Generally you want to promote variety and unorthodox strategies, which is why a few of these maps are in. But they are inconsistent at best, and in the case of a still developing game, it is probably in the interest of the general public to have most of the maps be "standard".
Till today, the only SC2 map that fits this bill, and unsurprisingly the most popular map is Shakuras Plateau. It is also statistically rather balanced with PvT suffering a little pre ghost nerf, but that is not specifically due to the map.
Let's have more maps like Shakuras, and less maps like Arid/Metal/DS, to encourage viewer friendly games!
Wow...I think your definition of "playable" maps is really small and actually kind of boring. It all maps were like this, I think the game would get stale very quickly.
Also, I have seen a ton of great, very viewer friendly games on Metal. What about Crossfire? I know it is a "crappy" map by your definitions, but have you even watched games on it? It seems like most of those games turn out to be friggin epic.
What I think is that the variety in maps is such a huge factor and needs to be played with more. Even though certain maps are hard to play on or harder for certain races, that is what makes the game and the player storylines interesting. To me, if all maps were like Shakuras, or with similar features, then the game would be dull. Also, as a spectator, I liked some of the maps that everyone hated like Desert Oasis because it forced games and situations that were uncommon, outside of everyone's safety zone. This led to some amazingly interesting games.
EDIT: I agree that those guidelines are just that, some things to think about but should not be rules or outlines that demand to be followed.
Great write up. Mapmakers, especially Blizzard need to realize this: That Brood War was made balanced and exciting because of the maps. And those maps promoted a huge variety of macro-based tactics and strategies.
I'd love to see some of the former BW-pros that are now SC2-pros duke it out on some of the classics, would be nice to see if they''re as good in SC2 as well. If that is indeed the case, I'd love to see Destination, Andromeda, Blue Storm & Fighting Spirit in the map pool.
On December 23 2011 17:43 TheAmazombie wrote: Wow...I think your definition of "playable" maps is really small and actually kind of boring. It all maps were like this, I think the game would get stale very quickly.
Also, I have seen a ton of great, very viewer friendly games on Metal.
What I think is that the variety in maps is such a huge factor and needs to be played with more. Even though certain maps are hard to play on or harder for certain races, that is what makes the game and the player storylines interesting. To me, if all maps were like Shakuras, or with similar features, then the game would be dull. Also, as a spectator, I liked some of the maps that everyone hated like Desert Oasis because it forced games and situations that were uncommon, outside of everyone's safety zone. This led to some amazingly interesting games.
I don't know what you are smoking, but shakuras is hardly small in my book. Maybe about average. If you're talking about the BW maps, then it is more difficult to provide an objective game-to-game comparison.
And playing on desert oasis is like smashing my head into the monitor repeatedly.
On December 23 2011 17:43 TheAmazombie wrote: Wow...I think your definition of "playable" maps is really small and actually kind of boring. It all maps were like this, I think the game would get stale very quickly.
Also, I have seen a ton of great, very viewer friendly games on Metal.
What I think is that the variety in maps is such a huge factor and needs to be played with more. Even though certain maps are hard to play on or harder for certain races, that is what makes the game and the player storylines interesting. To me, if all maps were like Shakuras, or with similar features, then the game would be dull. Also, as a spectator, I liked some of the maps that everyone hated like Desert Oasis because it forced games and situations that were uncommon, outside of everyone's safety zone. This led to some amazingly interesting games.
I don't know what you are smoking, but shakuras is hardly small in my book. Maybe about average. If you're talking about the BW maps, then it is more difficult to provide an objective game-to-game comparison.
And playing on desert oasis is like smashing my head into the monitor repeatedly.
Yeah, I know...the map was HARD. That is the point. It forced creative and interesting play and for me as a spectator, that was exciting. It took people out of their comfort zones. I hated playing on it as well, but I am commenting more from the spectator aspect.
I never said Shakuras was small...I just said that if every map was similar to it, then I think it would be dull.
Because SC2 is a new and different game, map balance is going to be hard to achieve until Legacy of the Void comes out. I don't think you should compare BW maps to SC2 maps since they're completely different, and I don't think anyone can truly criticize map makers because the game is constantly evolving, unlike BW which is somewhat stale at this point in time.
There will be no way to have amazing balanced maps until all the major balancing is done for sc2, aka when the last expansion comes. You list Dual Sight saying it's not that good of a map now. But at the time it was brought into play protoss were playing the whole get 3 base, get a giant deathball and zerg couldn't win. So Dual sight was made so it was harder to get a 3rd so zerg wouldn't suffer as badly. Yet, as zerg starts to figure out how to beat the death ball anyway, it suddenly goes from a minor-zerg friendly map to a major-zerg friendly map.
You can see Daybreak & Calm before the storm kind of swinging in the opposite direction. They are much bigger maps that allow you to take a 3rd that is safer. You know why? Because now Zerg is dominating the other races because they aren't able to get a 3rd and as long as they can scout well and defend the 2 base push they have nothing to worry about.
Maps right now, are just trying to balance the game the best we can. Remember, Shakuras got changed a whole bunch as well. Remember if Toss or Terran spawned horizontal positions from a zerg they could wall of the natural and just attack the zerg through the super choked off back door. If you didn't force cross positions then, shakuras was a terrible map. Now, with the removal of the back door (Because zerg was suffering) it became better. Although, it's still a somewhat garbage map overall because you can so easily split the map and zerg then don't have a chance. How often do we see Terran or Protoss grab 4 base and then just make sure the zerg can't take more then 4 base. Now what? Zerg can't win.
So with all this said... 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What? 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds Completely agree 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce Defends. You say Shakuras is a good map but if you take your 3rd, you can take a 4th and it's pretty much free. It all depends on the size of the map really. 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. True, yet why not have open spaces by your natural and have the middle more choked off? Now if a terran or toss move out they have more chokes in the middle to fight off the zerg who is most likely trying to surround you. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. Nothing is wrong with CBTS 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds XWTs & Rocks, I really don't see a problem. Golds, I agree get rid of them. As long as rocks play a strategical role they are great, it gets shitty when they are placed on every expansion. As for XWTs, it all depends on the maps, if maps have too many flanking paths then suddenly you will get maps with too many base races. Remember orignally BaseTrade (Bel'shir) Beach?
Ever notice how BW adaptations in SC2 always suck? They're different games, with different overarching strategies, where macro means something different than it did in BW. Believe it or not, but this is STILL a young game, with many, many map innovations and realizations to come. If you start making restrictive ground rules, you're only going to stifle creativity, both in play and maps.
Also, this thread stinks of "map aspects that benefit Terran are imba!"
You do know BW and SC2 are two totally different games? Map designs will be far more different than maps in BW, and I think its very dangerous if people start to analyze BW maps and try to bring concepts into SC2. Though that has worked well to some extent, the different aspects of SC2 will cause maps (bearing the best played games) to be made differently than BW maps. So yes, your rules apply to the current metagame state of the game, but I'm sure as time progresses maps will look much different. There can never be set templates because the game will always change. Don't forget expansions coming out too!
On December 23 2011 18:10 SidianTheBard wrote: 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What?
I believe he means, "The mineral line and/or nexus shouldn't be able to be attacked by tanks placed outside of the natural". Think of Tal'Darim for an example of map in which this isn't the case.
On December 23 2011 18:14 aksfjh wrote: Also, this thread stinks of "map aspects that benefit Terran are imba!"
Some might very well be undesirable. Things like abundant chokes can probably be exploited by other races as well with an adjustment in playstyle, but considering that siege tank based armies win or lose depending on positioning, an excessively favourable terrain risks breaking TvZ.
I would like to also point out, like I have before, that the pathfinding differences also leads to something else, which oftely is forgotten. Ground units are way more efficient at going where they have to, whereas air units feel relatively similar so map size becomes a bit of a three dimentional consideration.
On December 23 2011 18:10 SidianTheBard wrote: There will be no way to have amazing balanced maps until all the major balancing is done for sc2, aka when the last expansion comes. You list Dual Sight saying it's not that good of a map now. But at the time it was brought into play protoss were playing the whole get 3 base, get a giant deathball and zerg couldn't win. So Dual sight was made so it was harder to get a 3rd so zerg wouldn't suffer as badly. Yet, as zerg starts to figure out how to beat the death ball anyway, it suddenly goes from a minor-zerg friendly map to a major-zerg friendly map.
You can see Daybreak & Calm before the storm kind of swinging in the opposite direction. They are much bigger maps that allow you to take a 3rd that is safer. You know why? Because now Zerg is dominating the other races because they aren't able to get a 3rd and as long as they can scout well and defend the 2 base push they have nothing to worry about.
Maps right now, are just trying to balance the game the best we can. Remember, Shakuras got changed a whole bunch as well. Remember if Toss or Terran spawned horizontal positions from a zerg they could wall of the natural and just attack the zerg through the super choked off back door. If you didn't force cross positions then, shakuras was a terrible map. Now, with the removal of the back door (Because zerg was suffering) it became better. Although, it's still a somewhat garbage map overall because you can so easily split the map and zerg then don't have a chance. How often do we see Terran or Protoss grab 4 base and then just make sure the zerg can't take more then 4 base. Now what? Zerg can't win.
So with all this said... 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What? 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds Completely agree 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce Defends. You say Shakuras is a good map but if you take your 3rd, you can take a 4th and it's pretty much free. It all depends on the size of the map really. 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. True, yet why not have open spaces by your natural and have the middle more choked off? Now if a terran or toss move out they have more chokes in the middle to fight off the zerg who is most likely trying to surround you. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. Nothing is wrong with CBTS 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds XWTs & Rocks, I really don't see a problem. Golds, I agree get rid of them. As long as rocks play a strategical role they are great, it gets shitty when they are placed on every expansion. As for XWTs, it all depends on the maps, if maps have too many flanking paths then suddenly you will get maps with too many base races. Remember orignally BaseTrade (Bel'shir) Beach?
It seems to me that having to make it hard to expand is a step backwards, not a step forwards, in terms of gameplay development. There are just so much more strategies possible with a greater income than with a lower income, so I think that was an incorrect move. Besides, it was the zergs that needed to shape up their game - and they did just that...the game really needed more time.
Daybreak I would rate as a relatively unsafe 3rd. CBTS is practically a free 3rd. Shakuras, again, is about ideal.
More than 1 entrance to the nat is problematic, if backwater, searing and arid are any maps to go by. I think it is generally detested by the public when it becomes difficult to even take your nat without overinvesting in defence.
About the games being different - yes they are, but in terms of expansion taking they are actually rather similar, or getting moreso. We've come a long way from the days of steppes, delta, XNC and blistering, maps that were very un-BW like and very unfriendly to macro/many-fronted battles, and today we have maps that somewhat resemble BW style macro maps.
Ultimately I think that encouraging taking more bases without actually handing them out free is the right way to go. Such that it's advantageous to battle for expansions, yet not too challenging to retain them.
Bro, dont know what your talking about, but I love arid. I find that the trade off for a difficult expasion (at the begining), is an ezpz third. I also love generally expanding on it. I find that it feels alot more natural than on other maps. Also
On December 23 2011 17:50 jinorazi wrote: maybe i'm trippin but, has there been a map in sc2 with unbuildable ground, like frozen lake or rocks in bw?
needs to be implemented one day.
Blizzard needs to make it that creep can exist on unbuildable ground first, then this can happen. (Im pretty sure its possible, but its not as easy as opening the pathing painter, and just making some ground unpathable.)
On December 23 2011 18:10 SidianTheBard wrote: There will be no way to have amazing balanced maps until all the major balancing is done for sc2, aka when the last expansion comes. You list Dual Sight saying it's not that good of a map now. But at the time it was brought into play protoss were playing the whole get 3 base, get a giant deathball and zerg couldn't win. So Dual sight was made so it was harder to get a 3rd so zerg wouldn't suffer as badly. Yet, as zerg starts to figure out how to beat the death ball anyway, it suddenly goes from a minor-zerg friendly map to a major-zerg friendly map.
You can see Daybreak & Calm before the storm kind of swinging in the opposite direction. They are much bigger maps that allow you to take a 3rd that is safer. You know why? Because now Zerg is dominating the other races because they aren't able to get a 3rd and as long as they can scout well and defend the 2 base push they have nothing to worry about.
Maps right now, are just trying to balance the game the best we can. Remember, Shakuras got changed a whole bunch as well. Remember if Toss or Terran spawned horizontal positions from a zerg they could wall of the natural and just attack the zerg through the super choked off back door. If you didn't force cross positions then, shakuras was a terrible map. Now, with the removal of the back door (Because zerg was suffering) it became better. Although, it's still a somewhat garbage map overall because you can so easily split the map and zerg then don't have a chance. How often do we see Terran or Protoss grab 4 base and then just make sure the zerg can't take more then 4 base. Now what? Zerg can't win.
So with all this said... 1. Safe, one-entrance, FFE-able natural. Untankable. I think a natural should be safe & FFE-able. Yet I feel having more then 1 entrance isn't wrong. Also, untankable? What? 2. Relatively safe, nearby thirds Completely agree 3. Fourth is contested and difficult to consistently reinforce Defends. You say Shakuras is a good map but if you take your 3rd, you can take a 4th and it's pretty much free. It all depends on the size of the map really. 4. Good balance of chokes and open spaces - generally we want to see open spaces in the middle. True, yet why not have open spaces by your natural and have the middle more choked off? Now if a terran or toss move out they have more chokes in the middle to fight off the zerg who is most likely trying to surround you. 5. Not obnoxiously small/large and sinuous *cough calm before the storm cough*. Nothing is wrong with CBTS 6. Less XWTs, rocks and preferably no golds XWTs & Rocks, I really don't see a problem. Golds, I agree get rid of them. As long as rocks play a strategical role they are great, it gets shitty when they are placed on every expansion. As for XWTs, it all depends on the maps, if maps have too many flanking paths then suddenly you will get maps with too many base races. Remember orignally BaseTrade (Bel'shir) Beach?
It seems to me that having to make it hard to expand is a step backwards, not a step forwards, in terms of gameplay development. There are just so much more strategies possible with a greater income than with a lower income, so I think that was an incorrect move. Besides, it was the zergs that needed to shape up their game - and they did just that...the game really needed more time.
Daybreak I would rate as a relatively unsafe 3rd. CBTS is practically a free 3rd. Shakuras, again, is about ideal.
More than 1 entrance to the nat is problematic, if backwater, searing and arid are any maps to go by. I think it is generally detested by the public when it becomes difficult to even take your nat without overinvesting in defence.
About the games being different - yes they are, but in terms of expansion taking they are actually rather similar, or getting moreso. We've come a long way from the days of steppes, delta, XNC and blistering, maps that were very un-BW like and very unfriendly to macro/many-fronted battles, and today we have maps that somewhat resemble BW style macro maps.
Ultimately I think that encouraging taking more bases without actually handing them out free is the right way to go. Such that it's advantageous to battle for expansions, yet not too challenging to retain them.
Drama, strategies, and excitement revolve around securing that fourth base. The more units you have, the less each individual one matters. Also, it has more potential to appear as two giant balls smashing, and someone wins. From a spectator standpoint, having a more difficult-to-secure fourth is usually an asset.
As for diversity, many late-game scenarios looks just as much alike as the early game scenarios: at that point you have the resources to get everything, and so you do. With a more resource restricted midgame, players need to sacrifice one tech path for maximizing another, and with the unit diversity, this actually allows for more total variety of strategies in the mid game.
I'm speaking in generalities, of course, so specific examples will contradict what I said.
Shakuras is a terrible map balance wise, P and T are heavily favored over Z, as they will be in any map that allows for easy split-map. It's definitely a good map overall, but not really ideal. I'd take daybreak over shakuras as the standard for maps to be honest.
Personally, I like CBTS, I think it's a really good map to have in the pool (only 1 map like it, of course) because it plays differently than most maps, but in a good way.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/237_Fighting%20Spirit.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/188_Destination.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/175_Andromeda.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/147_Python.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/403_Icarus.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/407_Benzene.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/445_Dual%20Sight.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/504_Outlier.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/447_Shakuras%20Plateau%202.0.jpg)
