|
Can anyone come up with a good way to classify maps as "standard" or "non-standard" without too much subjectivity? It's pretty obvious on the fringes (e.g Dasan and Redshift are non-standard, Catalyst and Blackpink are standard), but it gets pretty ambiguous closer to the middle.
I think you need a third bucket for "rush map" as it doesn't make much sense not to group Submarine as a "standard rush map" with Turbo Cruise as a "non-standard rush map". But even that leaves a lot of cases that could go either way (even if you add a semi-standard group).
Four and three player maps end up pretty clearly in the non-standard category at this point, but what about reflective symmetry maps? Newkirk Precinct and Year Zero are pretty standard imo despite their symmetry. Or a map like World of Sleepers--the minerals feature barely ever mattered, so the map just played out as a large macro map (where Zerg was favoured, but that's besides the point).
I've wanted to do some analysis about how much less balanced non-standard maps are, but the classification part usually tripped me up (note that TLMC categories aren't useful here, as they are really inaccurate), so I didn't bother doing the analysis.
|
On May 06 2021 01:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good way to classify maps as "standard" or "non-standard" without too much subjectivity? It's pretty obvious on the fringes (e.g Dasan and Redshift are non-standard, Catalyst and Blackpink are standard), but it gets pretty ambiguous closer to the middle.
I think you need a third bucket for "rush map" as it doesn't make much sense not to group Submarine as a "standard rush map" with Turbo Cruise as a "non-standard rush map". But even that leaves a lot of cases that could go either way (even if you add a semi-standard group).
Four and three player maps end up pretty clearly in the non-standard category at this point, but what about reflective symmetry maps? Newkirk Precinct and Year Zero are pretty standard imo despite their symmetry. Or a map like World of Sleepers--the minerals feature barely ever mattered, so the map just played out as a large macro map (where Zerg was favoured, but that's besides the point).
I've wanted to do some analysis about how much less balanced non-standard maps are, but the classification part usually tripped me up (note that TLMC categories aren't useful here, as they are really inaccurate), so I didn't bother doing the analysis.
When I was thinking about this I went back through the current map pool and realized the choice of thirds is uninspired. I don't believe on any of the 7 maps I give any more thought to where I put my third than "linear or triangular" with no other stipulations. At least Pillars of Gold one was on higher ground that made me think a few seconds on which base I'd rather take, and how best to punish the other player for taking either of the two thirds. I realize the game is built around a relatively narrow set of third timings but I'd really like to see some more ways to experiment with third placement. Even Golden Wall had a third option in the eponymous golden wall.
|
|
|
Bisutopia19381 Posts
You definitely need one or two. Even Neo Arkanoid was a success in SC1 and SC2 despite how ridiculous of a map it is. A weird map helps shake the meta since there is usually one race struggling at any period of SC.
|
imo one or two unorthodox map makes the viewing experience better. Having multiple unorthodox maps makes the viewing experience worse. The effect is not linear.
|
|
|
Generally, yes.
But I also think it's good to have the maps with unorthodox elements to at least sort of fit with the prevalent meta. Golden Wall was an amazing map - but it was also very different from the other maps which were all oppressively standard that season. It stuck out like a sore thumb so people didn't practice on it as much, and so all the vetoes led to it being removed from the pool. If that map had been included in a ladder season that featured other maps that shared some common features (e.g. New Gettysburg), it would have seen more play, but it also wouldn't have been quite as memorable.
Ideally, ladder seasons should revolve around a shift in layout with more unorthodox maps pushing the boundaries of otherwise common features.
|
On May 07 2021 10:29 ThunderJunk wrote:
Generally, yes.
But I also think it's good to have the maps with unorthodox elements to at least sort of fit with the prevalent meta. Golden Wall was an amazing map - but it was also very different from the other maps which were all oppressively standard that season. It stuck out like a sore thumb so people didn't practice on it as much, and so all the vetoes led to it being removed from the pool. If that map had been included in a ladder season that featured other maps that shared some common features (e.g. New Gettysburg), it would have seen more play, but it also wouldn't have been quite as memorable.
Ideally, ladder seasons should revolve around a shift in layout with more unorthodox maps pushing the boundaries of otherwise common features.
That's all factually wrong.
Golden Wall got two seasons in the map pool as was usual, was somewhat vetoed but not tremendously, and other maps in the pool were also unorthodox such as Zen, and Purity and Industry. It didn't get removed because of vetoes or anything like that. Purity and Industry did get heavily vetoed and got removed after a season for being really imbalanced.
|
Northern Ireland27282 Posts
Yes *cries in removal of Golden Wall*
Depends on the map too. Unorthodoxy for the sake of it isn’t terribly good either. For example that map whose name I can’t recall that ‘experimented’ with making it borderline impossible for Protoss to wall properly. Some things are orthodox for a reason.
I think what made GW a very good tournament map was that you could play in a standard manner as well, and it didn’t have singular gimmicks, you had to plan around exploiting multiple features and there was counterplay to unorthodox play. For example if someone snuck down the bottom to expand you had positions you could snipe their workers from behind mineral patches.
|
I enjoy having standard maps with the unorthodox maps as that little extra in a series here and there, when watching tournaments. The unorthodox maps shouldn't stray too far from the standard ones, though. King Sejong Station is my all time favourite map, as a viewer. Golden Wall is great example of a successful unorthodox map in recent times. Games could be standard on those two maps, but they could also be different. Watching Myungsik beat zerg with blink stalkers over and over again with the words "I suck vs zerg so I just blink and hope" (paraphrased) on King Sejong Station in Proleague was very entertaining.
That leads to the second part: team leagues, where players prepare strats on 1 map vs 1 opponent. Unorthodox maps are the best for those kinds of matches. But it still follow the rule of standard maps should be the norm. Don't overdo it on the strangeness!
|
Vatican City State2 Posts
Yes, unfortunately the design of SC2 and the mentalities of it is players are so fragile that every tournament level map is the same 3 easy bases in one of two layouts with some winding corridors inbetween. Every SC2 map is a re-skinned Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom, more or less. You put something as "unorthodox" as a 4-player map in a tournament pool and SC2 pros whine on Twitter. Meanwhile ASL features 2-, 3-, and 4-player maps and unorthodox looks like Sparkle or Ringing Bloom.
|
Probably one big problem with unorthodox maps is that they usually reward certain interactions that affect the early and mid game more than the late game. This is probably mostly because general preference to have players interact with each other early on and not turtle. It is also harder to make map has some part blocked off for late game without deteriorating map because wasting space that could be used for more interesting features that can be interacted with. Another issue is the what kind of distribution of game length the map has. If games just end too early for other reasons then the unorthodox late game feature doesn't affect the game at all making it harder to say how good it is. On other hand the early and mid game features can impact the build orders greatly in way that leads to more optimized all-ins, pushes and cheeses that can become abusive as they grant victory too easily.
Edit: One exception to this would probably be features that only affect air units, but those are rare as air units ignore terrain features. Unfortunately with no new content being developed it is unlikely that we would get anything new like acceleration zone. There is also problem of having clear visuals that show that only air units are affected without obscuring vision on ground units. Two ideas about these kind of features are, "trees" that hide ground units from flying units and units on high ground, and some kind of storm that only affects the air units.
|
|
|
Imo the real debate here is "why is the community so averse to frequent map changes?"
+ Show Spoiler +Because the pros are sissies
Imagine a ladder or even a competition where there are 9 maps in the map pool and 3 of them are replaced each month (meaning a map would have a competitive shelf life of 3 months). You wouldn't even need "unorthodox" maps to bait the viewer into watching, i'm sure an ever changing map pool of mostly standard maps would be enough to throw pro players out of their comfort zone and ultimately that's what makes ann esport insteresting to watch.
Also in the current state of the game unorthodox maps are dangerous because if they're terrible we'll be stuck with them for God knows how long.
|
|
|
On May 10 2021 18:29 algue wrote:Imo the real debate here is "why is the community so averse to frequent map changes?" + Show Spoiler +Because the pros are sissies Imagine a ladder or even a competition where there are 9 maps in the map pool and 3 of them are replaced each month (meaning a map would have a competitive shelf life of 3 months). You wouldn't even need "unorthodox" maps to bait the viewer into watching, i'm sure an ever changing map pool of mostly standard maps would be enough to throw pro players out of their comfort zone and ultimately that's what makes ann esport insteresting to watch. Also in the current state of the game unorthodox maps are dangerous because if they're terrible we'll be stuck with them for God knows how long.
I don't think many people would argue against faster/more responsive map rotations, but that's a problem with Blizzard's responsiveness, so it's unlikely to change (unless ESL is happy with foregoing having tournament pools being in lockstep with ladder). The bigger question is whether we want more unorthodox maps given the current rotation process.
|
Northern Ireland27282 Posts
Would reasonably liberal use of unbuildable terrain in the middle ground of maps facilitate more variety?
Abuse of proxies on 3/4 player maps is a (correctly) given reason for not having more, but surely there are ways to mitigate it?
That aside there are other elements in SC2 in LoTV that play a factor too I suppose. The early thru midgame is now so truncated that not getting an early scout is massive in terms of playing reactively. Getting a late scout on someone playing incredibly greedy and by the time you discover their gambit you may not have the means to punish it.
|
On May 12 2021 09:08 WombaT wrote:
Would reasonably liberal use of unbuildable terrain in the middle ground of maps facilitate more variety?
Abuse of proxies on 3/4 player maps is a (correctly) given reason for not having more, but surely there are ways to mitigate it?
That aside there are other elements in SC2 in LoTV that play a factor too I suppose. The early thru midgame is now so truncated that not getting an early scout is massive in terms of playing reactively. Getting a late scout on someone playing incredibly greedy and by the time you discover their gambit you may not have the means to punish it.
Unbuildable terrain is interesting in SCII, given proxies are so prevalent. It's a logical thing to have, but there hasn't been any ladder map that has used it to a large extent (some maps have a had a bit of it. Like the pools on Odyssey) mostly because it's a bit hard to represent visually I think?
You can try with water of course (e.g this map called Grand Canal by me + Show Spoiler +), but it's not something that players would just 'get' immediately. I guess in BW it's not always too obvious if cracks/ rough terrain represent unbuildable areas.
|
I can't speak for the Pro scene, but when Blizzard eventually drops support and stops uploading maps I think they should inject every map created for the game (apart from the terrible early maps) into multiplayer and have them play at random so you have a mixed bag of 100s of maps, you can't learn all of the maps and every game will be fresh rather than playing the same old maps month after month.
|
I was against unorthodox maps until I started seeing them in the Proleague especially. Anarachnia (or whatever it was called, something like that) and others (including perhaps Fruitland in the GSTL).
Especially these days, I think unorthodox maps are good so that things don't become stagnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hhxaPaj.jpg)
