Map Size History & Analysis - Page 2

On July 08 2012 03:24 IronManSC wrote:
Mabye it's just me, but it bugs me that this is the second map analysis that contains the wrong ohana image. I don't know how or why people are still using the TLMC picture and yet clearly see that's not the correct version on ladder or in tournaments.

On July 08 2012 04:07 a176 wrote:
I have to ask, did you do all this manually? As in actually launch a game and count the seconds ...

For mappers, we use a tool called sc2mapanalyzer to help us create maps and size them appropriately. In particular, there is a feature that outputs rush distance for ground, air, and ground including cliff jump, for both main to main and nat to nat distances.

There is a collection of maps (needs to be updated for current season) that you can see here: http://a176.imgur.com/

On July 08 2012 04:07 a176 wrote:
I have to ask, did you do all this manually? As in actually launch a game and count the seconds ...

For mappers, we use a tool called sc2mapanalyzer to help us create maps and size them appropriately. In particular, there is a feature that outputs rush distance for ground, air, and ground including cliff jump, for both main to main and nat to nat distances.

There is a collection of maps (needs to be updated for current season) that you can see here: http://a176.imgur.com/

On July 08 2012 03:42 monitor wrote:
Glad to see somebody doing a writeup on this. You've got the right idea. Maps DON'T need to be larger. They need to use space more efficiently. Also btw you're using the wrong measurements for how large the map is. Taldarim isn't 192x192, its 172x172 (playable bounds is the meaningful number, the total bounds include a border which doesn't affect the map size).

[edit] Actually maybe taldarim is 178x178, I can't remember and can't check right now.

On July 08 2012 05:03 0neder wrote:

If you have to force cross-spawns and losing one engagement means you have no time to reinforce before your bases are toast, maps need to get bigger.

On July 08 2012 17:34 Serelitz wrote:
Why does the Muspelheim one account for unpathable terrain but all other maps don't?

On July 10 2012 04:02 Phanekim wrote:
what amuses me is that dustin browder wanted smaller maps thinking thats what the fans would want. i remember seeing this before beta and laughing. if it was gonna trend like bw, the bigger maps would happen.

On July 08 2012 05:35 Destructicon wrote:


That is absolutely wrong in every way shape and form.
The fact that you can lose the entire game due to one bad engagement is the result of bad game design resulting from lack of meaningful high ground mechanics and a lacking of strong space control units.

If those where in place, not only would deathballs be non existent, but would give players ample defender's advantage to make sure they don't just roll over and die if a fight goes sour.

The size of some of the older and the newer maps has been ridiculous and it needs to stop growing and actually might need to shrink slightly.

Now the reason why the maps may need to shrink is simple and two bold.
Reason number one, it favors some races too much. Protoss and Zerg gain the biggest benefits from large maps, needing safety early game but having strong in build racial mechanics that partially ignore map size later on.

Terran is the worst race, having the worst re-max time and little mechanics that speed up their army. On big maps, sometimes even if a terran wins a big fight he can't close out the game because reinforcements will be ready by the time the army arrives at the base, while a zerg or protoss can finish the game since warp ins can be done to a remote location you have power too, and zergs are just super fast on creep (creep spread is becoming way better now a days).

For terrans to be able to compete on big maps they need some gimmicky features like very chokey and closed areas to abuse the power of their aoe and zone control, or they need super open spaces on huge maps so they can just abuse the immobility of their opponent (very, very rare and unlikely against smart players). This also leads to my second point why maps need to get smaller.

Games are getting more and more boring.
Seriously, in nearly every match up apart from the mirrors, you see turtling and macro nearly every single fucking game. Turtle to the 10 minute mark, the 15 minute mark or the fucking 25 minute mark. Seriously, SC 2 is becoming a turtlefest and its becoming tedious to see game after game after game follow the same pattern like this. This isn't only the result of maps and is again part because of bad game design, but some smaller or less defensive maps could go a long way to encourage more early game aggression.

I'd rather see a short but very action packed 15 minute game, where the shit hits the fan from the 5 minute mark and continues all the way to the end, then see a damn 25 minute max out on MetroPolis with a 1 minute fight followed by a GG. This doesn't mean bringing back super small and retarded map, but it does mean encouraging aggression to start early but balancing it out so that it isn't so strong that it can kill. What I'm trying to say is that, the preference of aggression to defense should be nearly 50/50, players should be equally comfortable going on the offense as they are macroing, and both options need to be nearly 50% of each other in success so that we don't get the extremely turtely games of today or the extremely cheesy games of last year.