|
You're right that "gimmicky" maps are more stale than standard maps but considering the vast majority of maps we have are standard maps I think it's a good thing to have some maps that have basically their own meta players have to adapt to.
Let's see it this way: if we have 5 standard and 2 weird maps in the mappool the overall variety is higher than when we have 7 standard maps even if the weird maps are more stale on their own.
The only problem is of course is that there's always the risk that a map turns out to be horribly imbalanced.
Isn't that pretty much what we have had the past few seasons? But what ends up happening is that the pro players end up vetoing the same weird maps over & over, so as a result we see the same few maps over & over again?
This "added variety" that you speak of ends up having the opposite effect where we in practice have less variety due to players vetoing those weird maps.
The key imo is not to have weird maps, but to have good maps with unique features.
I've been of the opinion that some of these more unique maps we've seen in the pool simply aren't that good.
I'm generalizing of course but I think map makers need to respect the plot. That these maps need to be balanced because this game & even our pro players livelihoods depend on them.
Given the past submissions I have no doubt our map making community will be up to the challenge. Its that selection process by Blizzard after the fact that i hold my breath for. Looking forward to seeing what everyone comes up with 
|
I'm in favor of trying out new "weird"/"gimmicky" things for 1v1 maps as well as all kinds of custom maps, co-op, etc. etc. However, I dislike the new "toys" that have been presented specifially for these challenges so far, especially the Inhibitor Zone Generator. To me, inhibiting all unit movement outright in this way is a very unfun mechanic and something that, in my experience playing/running Dungeons & Dragons adventures, players will try to avoid at all costs or, if players are forced to go through it, become frustrated very quickly unless there is another mechanic/gimmick in the same area or close by, a puzzle to solve, treasure in the center of the aura, etc. that makes the encounter more interesting and fun.
Not only is it something I see as being unfun in practice, I also find it very unoriginal. New to SC2 =/= new to me and definitely doesn't automatically make it interesting, and so far (without seeing any maps that might implement it well, granted) that's all the inhibitor has going for it in my eyes.
Instead of the Inhibitor Zone Generator, I would much rather see new (fixed) air and line of sight/ranged attack blockers, new rocks/walls/interactive doors (structures that make new Tetris-block or custom-shaped rocks or indestructible walls, Jacky_'s Sky Gate as seen on Paradise Lost), new types of terrain (thick grass, deep snow, molten ground, rising or directionally flowing water, LAVA + Show Spoiler +I'm not biased at all I promise
Even something simple like adding a button for each player that they can click to activate their controlled generators would turn the (imo) unfun gimmick into something that could be extremely interactive, strategic, and fun. Something that players won't want to avoid at all costs or (rightfully) blame for a loss or universally veto after one or two games.
On January 11 2019 10:23 Achamian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 09:02 Nakajin wrote:
I'm ok with the change to mineral patches and gaz geyser, reaaaaaalllly not sure about the indestructible time warp, seems either super gimmicky/map breaking or totally useless. It's up to you guy's to change my mind!
I think if people use it to signify trudging through the snow / swamp / mud, it could be a great visual.
I like the idea of using the effect alongside weather changes on the map (affecting all units or only non-massive air units) much better, or, again, applying the effect to units moving across certain types of terrain (snow, mud, what-have-you). That's flavorful and cool and more interesting than not being to move somewhere just because the level designer placed an uninteractable inhibitor pylon nearby.
*Important edit: I always look forward to these map contests, even when I have no time to look at most of the maps or play on them, let alone make and submit any myself, this one's not an exception. I love seeing new maps. I just feel very strongly about these inhibitors and kind of (very much) oppose them being here for the challenge.
**And GLHF to the map makers!
|
The thing I find most interesting is that rich vespene geysers provide 8 gas per trip (unless I'm crazy, it was only 6 before the visual update).
|
I really want to see 4 spawn map make it into finals. Good luck to all contestants.
|
On January 11 2019 10:19 Yonnua wrote:
What's the effect of the Inhibitor Zone on mining workers? Does it reduce their rate of mining (and consequently increase the potential saturation of a base)?
If so, could this create new configurations for bases: e.g. a rich mineral base with an inhibitor, where you can gain minerals at a faster rate, but only with an increased number of workers dedicated to a more precarious base?
My thoughts exactly.
I checked the data in the Editor, and the behavior only has one modification: Movement:Movement Speed Multiplier = 0.65 . So, the buff will only impact the amount of time it takes to return cargo, not the action of mining itself. It would have an impact but not sure the exact reduction. It also does not affect Frenzied units (Ultralisks).
|
On January 11 2019 12:51 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 10:19 Yonnua wrote:
What's the effect of the Inhibitor Zone on mining workers? Does it reduce their rate of mining (and consequently increase the potential saturation of a base)?
If so, could this create new configurations for bases: e.g. a rich mineral base with an inhibitor, where you can gain minerals at a faster rate, but only with an increased number of workers dedicated to a more precarious base? My thoughts exactly. I checked the data in the Editor, and the behavior only has one modification: Movement:Movement Speed Multiplier = 0.65 . So, the buff will only impact the amount of time it takes to return cargo, not the action of mining itself. It would have an impact but not sure the exact reduction. It also does not affect Frenzied units (Ultralisks).
But what ive you had a mineral base that could be mined from two sides, one easier to defend but in the Zone, and the opposite side harder to defend but zero Zone.
|
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
|
On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers!
Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
|
On January 11 2019 11:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
The thing I find most interesting is that rich vespene geysers provide 8 gas per trip (unless I'm crazy, it was only 6 before the visual update).
I'm super curious about the rich vespene geysers in general. I actually think they're neat and am curious to see if anything comes from them.
I do like them having some weird and unusual stuff, because we can always try it and if it doesn't work out then we don't need to use it again. See "Sparkle" in the ASL.
|
I think workers spend around %40 of their time walking so it's like a %14 reduction in income per worker when they're slowed. You'd need more workers to saturate. It could have interesting effects on income per additional worker if, say, half the mineral line of a base is slowed.
8 Gas per trip is a bit difference compared to the 5 -> 7 difference in rich mineral fields. I guess the idea is that the overall gas income of a base can stay the same if you just use 1 rich geyser instead of 2 regular. It wouldn't do much other than free up 3 workers, though.
|
On January 11 2019 13:49 Frudgey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 11:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
The thing I find most interesting is that rich vespene geysers provide 8 gas per trip (unless I'm crazy, it was only 6 before the visual update). I'm super curious about the rich vespene geysers in general. I actually think they're neat and am curious to see if anything comes from them. I do like them having some weird and unusual stuff, because we can always try it and if it doesn't work out then we don't need to use it again. See "Sparkle" in the ASL.
They have been used before (the six gas per trip variety), like on Atlantis Spaceship or GSL Daybreak. But that was quite a while ago, as Blizzard stopped allowing them due to the fact that they used to look just like regular geysers.
|
Germany2074 Posts
Good luck to all the creative minds out there, the features seem very interesting, so I can't wait to see what you all come up with!
|
The rich vespene geyser concept is really interesting
Good luck to the contestants 
|
Bisutopia16870 Posts
On January 11 2019 13:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers! Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction.
Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance.
Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out.
|
On January 11 2019 22:06 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 13:17 NewSunshine wrote:On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers! Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction. Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance. Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out.
The lower mineral count obviously exists just to make mineral barriers that can be opened in a reasonable time, it doesn't seem targeted to actual bases.
|
Bisutopia16870 Posts
On January 11 2019 23:15 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 22:06 BisuDagger wrote:On January 11 2019 13:17 NewSunshine wrote:On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers! Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction. Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance. Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out. The lower mineral count obviously exists just to make mineral barriers that can be opened in a reasonable time, it doesn't seem targeted to actual bases.
That's great then. I enjoy map opening strategies. They can make for creative play.
|
Really excited with new features!
Actually when I think ways to improve SC2 I always come up with: making terrain more determinant (Ex: mud and snow make units slow, roads and highways make units go fast) and ofc nerfing air to compensate.
|
On January 11 2019 22:06 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 13:17 NewSunshine wrote:On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers! Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction. Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability.
yes but why
|
Bisutopia16870 Posts
On January 12 2019 01:41 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 22:06 BisuDagger wrote:On January 11 2019 13:17 NewSunshine wrote:On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:
i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers! Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction. Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. yes but why
Zones - Units are slowed in a way that you can't retreat without forces clumping. What it does is simply create areas of the map you want to avoid at all costs.
High Ground - Units aren't hindered but instead given an advantage. It allows you to defend key locations around the map including your offensive positions. So instead of creating places you never want to go to, it creates places on the map that provide opportunity for you to take these points instead and hold them.
|
I'd like to see a map where the path between natural and 3rd has a slow zone but the 3rd has rich geysers, basically forcing you to commit a bit more to defending it to reap the rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
