TPW Mapmaking Team Officially Retires - Page 4

On August 25 2013 18:21 Qikz wrote:


That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.

Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.

Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.

On August 25 2013 18:21 Qikz wrote:


That's complete and utter hogwash. The only reason you believe that is you believe the tripe that half the community spout when there's a newer map that arrives.

Korhal for example did something genuinly interesting with the two spawn mechanic but people just veto'd it, not because it was a bad map, but because they were too lazy to actually play different styles. It was by far one of the best maps we've ever had in the game.

Also to someone who was talking about bifrost, the map wasn't even imbalanced IMO. It worked pretty well for SC2 but it was rotated out as Proleague, thankfully actually rotates their maps.

On August 25 2013 18:42 Rabiator wrote:

So it is untrue that because Terrans have the MULE the number of "realistically useable Gold expansions" kinda had to be reduced or phased out?

So it is untrue that because Protoss have Forcefield and Zerg have Fungal AND the fact that the game is "designed for massive battles" any maps with chokes or smaller pathways in the middle have been considered badly balanced and had to be taken out? Incineration Zone was pretty good for Siege Tanks for example ... too good in fact and was considered a bad map.

So it is untrue that because of the massive amount of production small maps are really bad?

The bottom line is that yes there may be some neat mechanics which mapmakers can add to the game, BUT there are quite a lot of things they cant do simply because of the way the game is designed. Your "flat denial" sounds kinda black-and-whiteish as if the opinion of Ygritte cant be true because you find some examples which prove the opposite. The community has been trained by Blizzard to only expect "mass army play". It simply is very risky in SC2 to split off a part of your army and for some races the efficiency of small chunks is rather limited.

Four Marauders and a Medivac are very powerful and able to deal a lot of damage if they arent responded to as a drop. Take four Stalkers and a Warp Prism and you wont have the same efficiency as harrassment. This is the fault of the design of the game and it limits the options available to players AND ultimately makes funky maps with neat and nifty play favor one or two races too much.

Thus these maps are less viable for "balanced ladder or tournament play". Even the "KeSPA rock map" is nowhere to be seen anymore, probably because people feel that the game needs early harrassment to balance the races due to the necessity of "dont let him get there"-counter strategies which are required against some races.

The game is designed around "high speed" [production and economy] and easy to use massive armies and this limits map design in the same way greater speed in a car limits the tightness of bends you can safely drive through. Limited production speed and economy AND most importantly unit control/density force spreading your units and make more interesting maps less of a problem.

On August 25 2013 19:11 Ygritte wrote:

the only reason i believe that is because i play the game.

one simple example: every natural is basically the same on every map that is played (some may have a tiny bit smaller entrance than others). we do not have naturals like the one xel naga caverns anymore. why is that? because pvz is balanced around that.

On August 25 2013 19:24 gobbledydook wrote:



1) It's actually false that MULEs make gold bases bad for map balance. MULEs don't mine extra from gold bases. Usually the argument is that gold bases make it too hard to come back from because you generally can only hold gold bases if you are ahead, and if you are ahead and have a gold base you get further ahead.
2) GSL Red City is an example of a recent map with small pathways and rocks everywhere, and it was not particularly Protoss favoured.
3) I have no idea how small maps have anything to do with massive production. Obviously a smaller map inhibits mass macro play because there just are not enough safe bases. If anything the community generally do not like small maps because they don't like getting cheesed.
4) Obviously 4 stalkers and a warp prism won't do much because stalkers are bad units in general. Warp prism play is getting really popular. It is a staple of templar-first play in PvT (4 zealots in prism around 10 minutes in). Just don't put bad units inside warp prisms
5) Your last paragraph is vintage Rabiator and I won't even waste time arguing.

On August 25 2013 20:06 Rabiator wrote:
if one player starts this increased production earlier than the other its going to be a walkover

On August 25 2013 20:06 Rabiator wrote:

1. Ok, I didnt notice that change to the MULE, but why arent mapmakers using gold bases more then?

2. Red City was only used in GSTL Season 1, right? Far too few games to come to a conclusion.

3. Just consider how Zerg plays ... they are gearing up economy and then suddenly switch to massive production. The same is true for Terrans - who start increased production when they get their first reactor or have added 2-3 Barracks - and Protoss - who start mass production once they added X Gateways. The game will only be "balanced" or even "interesting" if both players have the same amount of army, but if one player starts this increased production earlier than the other its going to be a walkover because there is no time for emergency Spine Crawlers or blocking the ramp with buildings and so on ... Small maps are basically "cheese maps with auto-proxy Gateways, Barracks and so on" and thats why they are bad/unviable.

4. Exactly the point ... not every race has units which are awesome in small "strike teams". Zerg can do it because their units are relatively cheap, Terrans can do it because their units are reasonably cheap and efficient, but Protoss units are expensive and with relatively low efficiency, so it only become viable to do such things when they have a big economy and can easily send 6-10 Zealots on a suicide runby mission. That easily makes "nifty maps" - where you have to spread out or where there are several attack paths which are unconnected with each other - bad for balance. Warp Prisms with High Templars can only attack workers and the biggest strength of Marauders is the ability to quickly demolish a hatchery. Buildings are more important than workers sometimes, because without a hatchery those Drones are useless too ...

5. Maybe because you cant prove me wrong? C'mon ... give it a try and prove me wrong! I am still waiting for the first one to do it.

On August 25 2013 20:06 Rabiator wrote:

1. Ok, I didnt notice that change to the MULE, but why arent mapmakers using gold bases more then?

On August 24 2013 23:14 a176 wrote:


This is the shit that Blizzard "designs" and decides to throw it into the ladder pool for its community.

And people are asking why the mapmakers leave the scene, if not the game altogether?

About your gold base question I can answer that quickly. In a game where there is already basically a 3 base cap and extremely fast/big economy and 200/200 timings, why would you want to have bases that give even more income. We'd rather use bases with less income but as you may know Blizzard won't allow us to use half bases.

On August 25 2013 22:19 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Because this map was single handedly the coolest experience of the last 2 years on the ladder but hey, because it's not a daybreak clone and it actually forced people to use their brain instead of copying pro builds it's supposedly 'bad'.

You know gold bases give you about the same income as a normal base but for less workers right? Exactly what people have been trying to achieve.

You know gold bases give you about the same income as a normal base but for less workers right? Exactly what people have been trying to achieve.