|
Map Archetypes Post
We wanted to give a shoutout this week to the post that came up describing a potential way to describe different map archetypes, due to how well thought out it was. Describing a map this way seems to be a great start in order to make sure we have good map diversity in terms of how rush/econ heavy a map is.
After discussing this post internally, we wondered if we can expand on this concept further so that we can make sure each map stands out in a cool way compared to other maps out there. We think the 3x3 grid serves as a great way to define the alignment of a map’s economic/aggressive characteristics. We wonder though if this ‘alignment’ concept should work alongside another attribute—a unique map ‘class’ (archetype) aspect—to give a more complete picture of a map. For instance, maps like Prion Terraces might represent the class of maps which have easy-to-access high yield bases. We could have many maps of this class over the seasons, varied in alignment from aggressive to economic. We also believe there is room for more of these archetype concepts that really make a map stand out from what we’ve seen in the past, and we’d love to hear your ideas on other creative concepts which we can seek to use in maps of all types within this A.C.R.E. model.
Map Cuts for Season 2
We’ll be looking to cut a total of four maps for Season 2. The obvious three map cuts would be the oldest three maps in the pool: Ruins of Seras, Lerilak Crest, and Orbital Shipyard. Of the remaining four maps, (granted we want your feedback before we finalize) we were thinking the weakest map remaining is Central Protocol. We received a map submission called (4)Invader that is a similar idea to Central Protocol, but initially looks to be executed better. So we’re currently thinking if we cut Central Protocol, Invader could be a good new map to try in that slot. To be clear however, we are waiting to review all map submissions before any decisions are finalized.
Other Season 2 Maps
We’ve also been reading up on and discussing various ideas throughout the past month or so, and we feel that we may have located a couple cool ideas so far.
Island-like Map
The community has been discussing the idea of having a map that is not pathable by ground at certain stages of the game, and we’ve been looking closely into figuring out the exact points to attempt while having the map still be competitive. Here are the main points we’re considering on a map like this:
- Can scout early on to reduce the build order coin flip nature of island maps.
- Early/mid game players choose to get into a more of a “island” position by breaking down Rock Towers.
- We would need to have enough bases for players to grab (we’re thinking around 3-4 at least that can’t be attacked by ground unless rocks are broken).
- Late stage, the map would revert to more of a ground-based setup as rocks are broken down, opening up paths to the various bases.
This approach allows us to move in small steps towards having maps that are more and more like an island, instead of potentially breaking the game by taking too big of a step at once. We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Map with Varying Attack Route Considerations
Another idea that we thought was interesting is playing around with the idea of having the main attack path to the opponent be easy to defend, and the alternate attack paths being extremely long by ground. This way, more mobility-based units and/or air unit-based strategies could be more powerful. Here are some detailed points that we’d be trying to hit:
- This type of map would not be a rush map.
- The main attack path would be a low ground path that leads up to a small ramp. The defending player would have a big defender’s advantage if they are able to set up at the ramp outside of their base. This area could also be blocked off with buildings and smaller numbers of defensive units.
- The alternate paths take a much longer travel along by ground, so mobile units would make a heavier usage of these paths.
- Perhaps different paths could open up in the late game, so that the games on this map don’t drag on too much due to the main attack path being too easy to defend.
And of course, we’ll always be on the lookout for additional suggestions.
Reaper Strength
There looks to be an interesting split regarding feedback here. On the KR community side, we’re hearing a lot of feedback that Zerg has no chance vs. Reapers in the early game, and on the non-KR side, we’re seeing a lot of Reaper strength issues in TvT. Let’s keep a close eye on Reaper strength going forward, and perhaps test a change on the next Balance Test Map if it is needed.
PvZ Ravager Timing Strength
We’re seeing a lot of feedback about the strength of early Ravagers, and we’ve noticed the strength of Ravager pushes in PvZ. While we aren’t sure that a change is definitely needed at this time, we agree that it would be good to be ready with a change by getting a Balance Test Map going. This way, if the strategy does indeed turn out to be problematic, we can patch right away.
If we are to test a nerf to Ravagers, we believe it might be good to test nerfing their ability against immobile units and/or structures. For example, if each shot damage was reduced or if the cooldown of the ability was increased a lot, or something along those lines. This way, if we were to lean towards doing the Siege Tank Medivac pick up removal in the future, TvZ will definitely also be less affected as well, which would be a plus. If we go with a different solution for TvT mech viability, we would most likely want to look for a different change here as well.
|
your Country52798 Posts
Why doesn't Blizzard cut all of the current maps instead of just 4? We'll have had all of them for two seasons (counting the off-season after blizzcon 2015). None of them are particularly amazing (no offense). The community has just sent Blizzard a vast number of extremely compelling maps to use, so why not make a pool out of all of those?
Also, I'm sure that Avex will be thrilled that one of his maps (Invader) is already being considered, even though it's probably not one of his best maps.
|
I hadn't seen that map archetypes post (i.imgur.com). Seems interesting conceptually.
I'm also disappointed that Blizzard is still at the state of thinking there might be a problem in PvZ. Seems like any changes there will be slow to come.
|
Zergs have problems with reapers?
|
On February 13 2016 04:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:I hadn't seen that map archetypes post ( i.imgur.com). Seems interesting conceptually. I'm also disappointed that Blizzard is still at the state of thinking there might be a problem in PvZ. Seems like any changes there will be slow to come.
Yeah I think they should do a ravager nerf, at minimum delay the ability. I think that and the adept's ability need longer cool downs. You shouldn't be able to spam it every 5 seconds, make it 15 seconds or something so you can't just mindlessly spam the ability with no consequence really.
I imagine that would help a lot, maybe a damage tweak if needed, but at minimum delay the ability.
Other then that though what do we change for pvz? What do we buff or nerf? I feel like the only possible issue would be ravagers but other then that what other issues are in the match up that people think are actually imbalanced? Would be curious to note.
|
|
|
I can't understand why Blizzard is still using the concept of "rush map". We're in 2016 for fuck's sake.
|
Looks very interesting so far!
|
On February 13 2016 04:02 TheWinks wrote:
PvZ Ravager Timing Strength
We’re seeing a lot of feedback about the strength of early Ravagers, and we’ve noticed the strength of Ravager pushes in PvZ. While we aren’t sure that a change is definitely needed at this time, we agree that it would be good to be ready with a change by getting a Balance Test Map going. This way, if the strategy does indeed turn out to be problematic, we can patch right away.
If we are to test a nerf to Ravagers, we believe it might be good to test nerfing their ability against immobile units and/or structures. For example, if each shot damage was reduced or if the cooldown of the ability was increased a lot, or something along those lines. This way, if we were to lean towards doing the Siege Tank Medivac pick up removal in the future, TvZ will definitely also be less affected as well, which would be a plus. If we go with a different solution for TvT mech viability, we would most likely want to look for a different change here as well.
I agree with this. I think that the current damage from Corrosive Bile is fine. However, the cooldown should be increased dramatically, so that the zergs cannot spam the ability like it is free. Instead, they will have to choose "when" to use it.
I think doubling the current cooldown is reasonable.
|
On February 13 2016 04:22 Empirimancer wrote:
Zergs have problems with reapers?
If you don't blindly counter it, mass reapers are insanely difficult to deal with. Far more difficult to deal with than it is to execute.
I'd personally like to see the grenade be researchable and switch from its current use to an anti building grenade like its WoL attack. This would give it the early harass capabilities it had in HotS plus a reason to build them after 2 minutes
On February 13 2016 04:32 usopsama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:02 TheWinks wrote:
PvZ Ravager Timing Strength
We’re seeing a lot of feedback about the strength of early Ravagers, and we’ve noticed the strength of Ravager pushes in PvZ. While we aren’t sure that a change is definitely needed at this time, we agree that it would be good to be ready with a change by getting a Balance Test Map going. This way, if the strategy does indeed turn out to be problematic, we can patch right away.
If we are to test a nerf to Ravagers, we believe it might be good to test nerfing their ability against immobile units and/or structures. For example, if each shot damage was reduced or if the cooldown of the ability was increased a lot, or something along those lines. This way, if we were to lean towards doing the Siege Tank Medivac pick up removal in the future, TvZ will definitely also be less affected as well, which would be a plus. If we go with a different solution for TvT mech viability, we would most likely want to look for a different change here as well.
I agree with this. I think that the current damage from Corrosive Bile is fine. However, the cooldown should be increased dramatically, so that the zergs cannot spam the ability like it is free. Instead, they will have to choose "when" to use it. I think doubling, or maybe even tripling, the current cooldown is reasonable. Doing so will also make force field desirable again.
The problem with increasing its cooldown too much is that it loses the reason its a unit in the first place. Bile breaks forcefields, and if you can have 5 forcefields but only enough bile to break 3 you're gonna die every time as you still can't break them all and now aren't hitting the army with them.
|
On February 13 2016 04:32 usopsama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:02 TheWinks wrote:
PvZ Ravager Timing Strength
We’re seeing a lot of feedback about the strength of early Ravagers, and we’ve noticed the strength of Ravager pushes in PvZ. While we aren’t sure that a change is definitely needed at this time, we agree that it would be good to be ready with a change by getting a Balance Test Map going. This way, if the strategy does indeed turn out to be problematic, we can patch right away.
If we are to test a nerf to Ravagers, we believe it might be good to test nerfing their ability against immobile units and/or structures. For example, if each shot damage was reduced or if the cooldown of the ability was increased a lot, or something along those lines. This way, if we were to lean towards doing the Siege Tank Medivac pick up removal in the future, TvZ will definitely also be less affected as well, which would be a plus. If we go with a different solution for TvT mech viability, we would most likely want to look for a different change here as well.
I agree with this. I think that the current damage from Corrosive Bile is fine. However, the cooldown should be increased dramatically, so that the zergs cannot spam the ability like it is free. Instead, they will have to choose "when" to use it. I think doubling, or maybe even tripling, the current cooldown is reasonable. Doing so will also make force field desirable again.
Please let´s not make FF a thing again. Also doubling the cool down seems kinda overkill considering that Z needs ravagers against terran also.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:I hadn't seen that map archetypes post ( i.imgur.com). Seems interesting conceptually. I'm also disappointed that Blizzard is still at the state of thinking there might be a problem in PvZ. Seems like any changes there will be slow to come.
On the surface, that post is a reasonable way of fitting maps into categories, but there are so many ways to describe a map that are completely different that this doesn't really help too much. It doesn't even come close to describing the strategies possible on the map (other than rush/standard/macro, but come on, that's as old as SC2). The categories are also subjective; I honestly think that, for example, KSS is a true neutral and Orbital Shipyard is a Roaming/Neutral Economy. The lines between the categories are really blurred.
Also, one might note that basically no mapmaker better than Avex that I've talked to (~10) thinks it's very good.
|
Great post by Blizzard. I'm usually critical of their approach but looks like they are going the right direction.
PvZ is problematic, no questions about it. Great that they are looking at the right issues.
I'm only hoping new maps won't have super hard to wall-off ramps or wide open spaces like Lerirak Crest.
Only thing that remains is for them to implement changes a bit faster and try to identify other issues.
|
Zero mention of mech viability, mass tempest issues, etc. Pretty disappointing "update." They basically have completely killed off mech, it's known why it's not playable atm, and they still refuse to address why it isn't playable or consult with anyone knowledgeable about it.
K.
|
On February 13 2016 04:48 avilo wrote:
Zero mention of mech viability, mass tempest issues, etc. Pretty disappointing "update." They basically have completely killed off mech, it's known why it's not playable atm, and they still refuse to address why it isn't playable or consult with anyone knowledgeable about it.
K.
They literally used the phrase 'mech viability' in the update  .
|
I don't think they want to push any big changes because we're now in the middle of GSL. I think big changes would come just after code S ends so that we have a clearer picture of how the pros abuse the current game.
give it time folks
|
On February 13 2016 04:40 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2016 04:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:I hadn't seen that map archetypes post ( i.imgur.com). Seems interesting conceptually. I'm also disappointed that Blizzard is still at the state of thinking there might be a problem in PvZ. Seems like any changes there will be slow to come. On the surface, that post is a reasonable way of fitting maps into categories, but there are so many ways to describe a map that are completely different that this doesn't really help too much. It doesn't even come close to describing the strategies possible on the map (other than rush/standard/macro, but come on, that's as old as SC2). The categories are also subjective; I honestly think that, for example, KSS is a true neutral and Orbital Shipyard is a Roaming/Neutral Economy. The lines between the categories are really blurred. Also, one might note that basically no mapmaker better than Avex that I've talked to (~10) thinks it's very good.
Any system to categorize Starcraft maps would suffer from the same problems though. And any system that tried to capture the nuances of maps (e.g viability of air play, expansion rates of different match ups) would end up hopelessly complicated and therefore useless for categorizing.
The main goal of this as far as I understood it, is to try to avoid having all the maps in the map pool fall into one or two categories which would be an indication of the map pool being skewed and/or unhealthy. Of course having all the maps fall in different categories wouldn't conversely be a guarantor of the map pool being healthy.
So while this system isn't terribly useful for the evaluation of individual maps, for the purpose of getting an overview of the overall state of the map pool I think roaming/constricting is a suitable criterion.
|
Island maps would definitely be fun for a few games but for competitive play... just no.
|
On February 13 2016 04:26 OtherWorld wrote:
I can't understand why Blizzard is still using the concept of "rush map". We're in 2016 for fuck's sake.
This ain't no casual game.
|
Please don't kill the reaper. It's an interesting unit right now, and reaper openings make the game more entertaining. I fear that blizzard will go overboard with this. Someone suggested making the bomb an upgrade. This would result in 0 usage of this upgrade. No one will make a tech-lab and the invest in an upgrade for a unit that loses its utility very quickly.
Reaper strength is such map dependent as well, and these issues can be balanced through map design. Wide cliffs surrounding the main and natural makes the reaper good, a lot of blockage makes it bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
