EPTHow do you feel about the level of variety in the current…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net125 Posts
| ||
|
Master of DalK
Canada1797 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22980 Posts
I think with some shackles off mapmakers will knock it out of the park, but as long as the ladder pool is picked as it is they’ll never be able to flex their creative muscles | ||
|
tigera6
3168 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10280 Posts
But re-examine and re-inintroduce elements that BW maps and earlier SC2 maps have had, such as having alternative expo options that are further away (naturally harder to defend) but compensated by features that make it easier to defend or worth holding (currently we do this with rich bases, but let's try things like cliffs/chokes/ramps), which promote spread out gameplay and make it easier to have a few units hold a position/base cost effectively (like Liberator, Disruptor, Lurker, units introduced in LotV to push this direction). Having far off expansions be super open just makes it easy to take out bases and encourage you to deathball your army up because you need to have your deathball to defend their deathball. When it becomes harder to break into positions/bases, then it will encourage more spread out gameplay with smaller skirmishes. SC2 still has so much potential, but it's held back by maps phasing out a lot of things that may have made sense back then but don't anymore. For example, when Zerg was OP, maps started making the 4th/5th very easy to attack into so that Terran/Protoss can threaten Zerg from exploding in economy. However, this also makes it hard for Terran/Protoss to hold that important 4th/5th base, and currently we see it benefiting Zerg more as they will explode in econ anyways and then start throwing swarms to suffocate T/P. Very open bases also makes crackling runbys very hard to defend for Protoss. I don't think having every expansion past your 3rd/4th be super open and easy to attack into should be a default feature of maps anymore. Re-examine map size. Yes large maps favor Zerg (and if large enough then Protoss as well), and disadvantage Terran due to immobility issues. This has been the main reason why despite bigger maps leading to much more back and forth games with more frequent fighting and chances to comeback, so we end up needing a mix of smaller maps for Terran. However there is a solution, what happened to Terran-favored features such as cliffs near expansions for you to drop/harass from, or cliffs around the map that you can use to put a tank or two on and fortify some forward position? What about far off expansions having high ground with ramps that they can take, wall off, and then put some production there (instead of grouping it all in their main which is dangerous, and takes longer to reinforce). This used to be a thing with 3-4 player spawn maps. But when maps started to become all 2-player, i feel that map makers weren't conscious of the loss of this feature. I can't think of a single 2 player map where a far off base has a high ground with a small ramp for example except Golden Wall with the upper center bases. We can have big maps with spread out gameplay while re-introducing Terran favored features to compensate for their lack of mobility on big maps. If we can further push LotV's direction of spread out gameplay + smaller skirmishes + less deathball play, then things can get even crazier, more exciting, and deeper than they currently are. Remember maps like Tal'Darim Alter where players could control different corners of the map and have production buildings spread out? Games on that map were often crazy, long, and action packed. There were so many different things you could decide to do, since your armies can only be in 1 place at a time and there's a lot of decision making. In WoL, people said the maps were too long and the games took too long to close out, citing that since players can take the other main/naturals players, they could rebuild and it was hard to close out a game. However, that's the kind of back and forth action that people find exciting about BW and that LotV succeeding in pushing the game more towards. Regarding depth, while we've seen many intense games at DH Atlanta and recent SC2, games still has a bit of "top vs bottom" syndrome. For example when you see a game where it's 7 base with 7 base, if one player loses a big fight hard then you can see them gg out. Even though they've built up to 7 bases, it's over? That's just weird to me. There's no fight or comeback potential left? A big reason for this is because of maps clumping the first 3rd/4th together, and making it harder and harder to take later bases by making them open and hard to defend. This means that if you lose a fight, it's easy for the opponent to snuff you out completely. Having farther bases with defensive features like high ground/ramps/chokes It would also make it so that basetrades have a chance at equalizing and can lead to crazy situations. Currently base trades are often just, each player races to kill the opponent base first and that's it. Very rarely you see things stabilize for a bit (for example both players manage to get 1 base up), yet when those situations do stabilize it becomes a memorable and exciting game. So why not let these moments happen more? (Like old games on Taldarim Alter?) Fights in SC2 are usually just 2 armies clashing. What about gameplay where there's lots of small armies moving around trying to take out fortified positions, break into expansions that are on high ground with chokes, and each player trying to intercept the other's units? When it takes more time to break into and destroy an expansion, it allows for more interactions from both players, rather than "oh i have the opponent out of position so ill A move my deathball to take this very open expansion out". It could be more like, oh the protoss has walled this expo's ramp and has a sentry with FF and a disruptor/immortal, so I'll bring a viper over to abduct the sentry so my roaches can break up it without trading terrible, oh they anticipated this and countered by warping in a HT and feedbacking, etc. (This situation doesn't make much sense but i think you get the basic gist, that's what BW is more like). I'm not saying current SC2 isn't exciting to watch. It's been very tense and good, and there has been much more back and forth fighting and chances for plays and comebacks by slowly trading better than your opponent. However, there is a big aspect of SC2 that is missing that's seen in earlier SC2 and in BW, it's what LotV has strived to push the gameplay more into, but I think the maps are still holding it back by having phased out common features of BW maps and earlier SC2 maps, and not re-introducing them. I've been making similar posts for the last few months so apologies if this post has been very rambly and incoherent, but i hope the basic gist of it is clear. I really hope that mapmakers and the community can re-examine these things. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6606 Posts
On December 21 2023 12:57 Master of DalK wrote: 3 or 4 spawn maps please i beg Those did bring some fun games in BW. Especially when you scout the wrong direction | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22980 Posts
On December 21 2023 14:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: it keeps getting better ! But re-examine and re-inintroduce elements that BW maps and earlier SC2 maps have had, such as having alternative expo options that are further away (naturally harder to defend) but compensated by features that make it easier to defend or worth holding (currently we do this with rich bases, but let's try things like cliffs/chokes/ramps), which promote spread out gameplay and make it easier to have a few units hold a position/base cost effectively (like Liberator, Disruptor, Lurker, units introduced in LotV to push this direction). Having far off expansions be super open just makes it easy to take out bases and encourage you to deathball your army up because you need to have your deathball to defend their deathball. When it becomes harder to break into positions/bases, then it will encourage more spread out gameplay with smaller skirmishes. SC2 still has so much potential, but it's held back by maps phasing out a lot of things that may have made sense back then but don't anymore. For example, when Zerg was OP, maps started making the 4th/5th very easy to attack into so that Terran/Protoss can threaten Zerg from exploding in economy. However, this also makes it hard for Terran/Protoss to hold that important 4th/5th base, and currently we see it benefiting Zerg more as they will explode in econ anyways and then start throwing swarms to suffocate T/P. Very open bases also makes crackling runbys very hard to defend for Protoss. I don't think having every expansion past your 3rd/4th be super open and easy to attack into should be a default feature of maps anymore. Re-examine map size. Yes large maps favor Zerg (and if large enough then Protoss as well), and disadvantage Terran due to immobility issues. This has been the main reason why despite bigger maps leading to much more back and forth games with more frequent fighting and chances to comeback, so we end up needing a mix of smaller maps for Terran. However there is a solution, what happened to Terran-favored features such as cliffs near expansions for you to drop/harass from, or cliffs around the map that you can use to put a tank or two on and fortify some forward position? What about far off expansions having high ground with ramps that they can take, wall off, and then put some production there (instead of grouping it all in their main which is dangerous, and takes longer to reinforce). This used to be a thing with 3-4 player spawn maps. But when maps started to become all 2-player, i feel that map makers weren't conscious of the loss of this feature. I can't think of a single 2 player map where a far off base has a high ground with a small ramp for example except Golden Wall with the upper center bases. We can have big maps with spread out gameplay while re-introducing Terran favored features to compensate for their lack of mobility on big maps. If we can further push LotV's direction of spread out gameplay + smaller skirmishes + less deathball play, then things can get even crazier, more exciting, and deeper than they currently are. Remember maps like Tal'Darim Alter where players could control different corners of the map and have production buildings spread out? Games on that map were often crazy, long, and action packed. There were so many different things you could decide to do, since your armies can only be in 1 place at a time and there's a lot of decision making. In WoL, people said the maps were too long and the games took too long to close out, citing that since players can take the other main/naturals players, they could rebuild and it was hard to close out a game. However, that's the kind of back and forth action that people find exciting about BW and that LotV succeeding in pushing the game more towards. Regarding depth, while we've seen many intense games at DH Atlanta and recent SC2, games still has a bit of "top vs bottom" syndrome. For example when you see a game where it's 7 base with 7 base, if one player loses a big fight hard then you can see them gg out. Even though they've built up to 7 bases, it's over? That's just weird to me. There's no fight or comeback potential left? A big reason for this is because of maps clumping the first 3rd/4th together, and making it harder and harder to take later bases by making them open and hard to defend. This means that if you lose a fight, it's easy for the opponent to snuff you out completely. Having farther bases with defensive features like high ground/ramps/chokes It would also make it so that basetrades have a chance at equalizing and can lead to crazy situations. Currently base trades are often just, each player races to kill the opponent base first and that's it. Very rarely you see things stabilize for a bit (for example both players manage to get 1 base up), yet when those situations do stabilize it becomes a memorable and exciting game. So why not let these moments happen more? (Like old games on Taldarim Alter?) Fights in SC2 are usually just 2 armies clashing. What about gameplay where there's lots of small armies moving around trying to take out fortified positions, break into expansions that are on high ground with chokes, and each player trying to intercept the other's units? When it takes more time to break into and destroy an expansion, it allows for more interactions from both players, rather than "oh i have the opponent out of position so ill A move my deathball to take this very open expansion out". It could be more like, oh the protoss has walled this expo's ramp and has a sentry with FF and a disruptor/immortal, so I'll bring a viper over to abduct the sentry so my roaches can break up it without trading terrible, oh they anticipated this and countered by warping in a HT and feedbacking, etc. (This situation doesn't make much sense but i think you get the basic gist, that's what BW is more like). I'm not saying current SC2 isn't exciting to watch. It's been very tense and good, and there has been much more back and forth fighting and chances for plays and comebacks by slowly trading better than your opponent. However, there is a big aspect of SC2 that is missing that's seen in earlier SC2 and in BW, it's what LotV has strived to push the gameplay more into, but I think the maps are still holding it back by having phased out common features of BW maps and earlier SC2 maps, and not re-introducing them. I've been making similar posts for the last few months so apologies if this post has been very rambly and incoherent, but i hope the basic gist of it is clear. I really hope that mapmakers and the community can re-examine these things. Rambling and incoherent is my personal bread and butter so I always welcome your thoughts! I’d be interested to see some experimentation in base layouts, especially the standard 4th/5th and beyond positions. With a few exceptions you tend to see naturals and 3rds usually having pretty tight chokeholds, and those further out bases as being rather open. Surely we could see more variation with some far out, forward choke points leading into expansions that are still open. So a diligent defense and good movement can head off dedicated assaults, or runbys, but wily attacker, or a merely fortunate one, if they bypass the chokes can attack into a wide-open expansion. Or multiple chokes that are well-defensible, that lead into open spaces behind. Or have creative uses of various map features that can be manipulated, slow/speed fields, destructible or ‘re-structible’ rocks etc. I guess some maps have some of this don’t get me wrong. I’m generalising and don’t mean to do mapmakers a disservice. But a lot of bases are either ‘here is a convenient choke so you don’t die’ or ‘this base is wide open, good luck if you’re ever out of position’. What I’d like to see are open bases, but with forward positions that aren’t super convenient to immediate defence, but if they’re plugged that can lock down a position. Not sure if that rambling makes much sense but I did try! | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22980 Posts
On December 21 2023 17:24 Harris1st wrote: Those did bring some fun games in BW. Especially when you scout the wrong direction I’d love it if someone can make it work and prove me wrong. I just think LoTV economy ramps up so damn fast that a wrong scout is just brutally punishing and doesn’t make for much fun. Some of my favourite maps in SC2 like Whirlwind and Frost were 4 player, I’m just not sure the pace of Legacy is conducive to them. In WoL/HoTS you might be unlucky and scout late and miss hyper greed or hyper cheese, absolutely, but in Legacy as it’s so much faster you’ll miss scouting even a big tech decision in ballpark the same timeframe. Maybe some crazy person can make a non-symmetrical setup work or something, with weird scouting lanes only wide enough for a worker scout and with speed boosts, or something mental like that to offset it. Or with teleport pads that only workers can use that enable a double or triple spawn scout to be done quickly enough that it offsets choosing the wrong location to scout isn’t hugely disadvantageous. If someone does make such a map I want no credit as they’ve made the ramblings of a lunatic into something actually functional :p | ||
Waxangel
United States32926 Posts
On one hand, I think maps are DEFINITELY way too stale from an esports fans' point of view. As a fan, I'm totally willing to accept some less-balanced maps with more randomness if it makes tournaments more fun to watch. On the other hand, I feel like it's pretty rough to ask pros to make a sacrifice at this point in the SC2 cycle. The pros who chose to stick around aren't exactly making great money, and it's not like we have a realistic chance of hugely reviving the SC2 scene through more interesting maps. Giving the pros the boring-ass maps they prefer is more than a fair concession given all they go through. | ||
|
IIEclipseII
Germany155 Posts
This would be boring for map makers and the contest itself but players and pros would benefit a lot more so maybe we could make a slightly different map contest in the future where new iterations of older maps are being resubmitted. edit: people on TL.net could first vote on their most favorite maps of all time and then also discuss on what could be changed on them and then map makers can submit iterations. Not entirely sure how this could be worked out in detail. Everyone can submit an iteration of a particular map or only the original map maker? | ||
|
Kantuva
Uruguay204 Posts
With all the current and upcoming new map features that are being allowed in TLMC, I am certain that we'll be able to find new stable zones of map design where the 3 races can play more or less standard builds in non-standard maps. In physics, I was taught of the Valley of Stability when it comes to nuclei, after certain nuclei size they became unstable, but there were hypothesis and speculation that there likely were other zones of nuclear stability much further out in ultra-heavy nuclei. I don't know if this is still something that it is taught, but I certainly believe that this is the case in SC2 maps. We already had a serious outsider show a direction with GoldenWall. But there are likely several other directions which can be explored. In BW this is already the case. Where several metagame-stable maps exist in unison alongside the standard rake style map layouts. That said, I dont believe that SC2 can ever reach the fundamental gameplay stability of BW for the fact that SC2 has got strong deep issues with the Worker Pairing issue which stops players from being rewarded going above 3.5 fully mining bases other than maintaining base ecology... Which is generally not a concern when it comes to players fighting each other as whom ever mines more/more efficiently will win either way. Previously I have already produced several non-standard layouts, but at the time we simply didn't had the tools we'll end up having soon enough in map design. I think one of my own faves has to be Khione: ♦ https://ktvmaps.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/ktv-khione/ In the current TLMC, we already have seen maps like Loihi being submitted, and it is likely that this trend won't stop, which is great from my perspective. ♦ https://ktvmaps.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/ktv-loihi/ One interesting aspect that I have mentioned to ppl and DevTeam previously, is that what they consider "map features", such as lets say, MineralWalls, is that these things "are not a feature", they are a balancing tool, in order to make the "true feature" work. In the case of for example Hitchhiker, the True feature of the map is the central pathway alongside the level ground wings of the map, and neither of these features could have worked if it were not because of the stacked xel'naga temples. It is the xel'naga temples themselves the ones which allow the map to exist, and be gameplay balanced in some way or another. So the more tools mapmakers are given and allowed, the more likely that they can achieve these objectives of making interesting out of scope maps which still "work". A case of a map that as it is simply doesnt work but could is Eris: ♦ https://ktvmaps.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/ktv-eris-re/ The rocks on the natural bases ramps were simply not enough to provide a solid walll. But maybe alternate ways of blocking the thing could have allowed the map to shine, but at the time doing things like these was simply all too wild to even think about. Lack of imagination in my part so to speak. Right now, mapmakers have been suggesting ideas for these previously mentioned tools to implement, which hopefully can be done so. 🤞 A thing that I want pushed through, is to highlight the place the opponent spawned at gamestart.... I think that this alone could give 3p, 4p and 5 player spawn maps a fighting chance to be used competitively again... Even when you might lose the flavor of the random spawns. What do you guys think? | ||
|
Kantuva
Uruguay204 Posts
On December 21 2023 14:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: it keeps getting better ! But re-examine and re-inintroduce elements that BW maps and earlier SC2 maps have had, such as having alternative expo options that are further away (naturally harder to defend) but compensated by features that make it easier to defend or worth holding (currently we do this with rich bases, but let's try things like cliffs/chokes/ramps), which promote spread out gameplay and make it easier to have a few units hold a position/base cost effectively (like Liberator, Disruptor, Lurker, units introduced in LotV to push this direction). Having far off expansions be super open just makes it easy to take out bases and encourage you to deathball your army up because you need to have your deathball to defend their deathball. When it becomes harder to break into positions/bases, then it will encourage more spread out gameplay with smaller skirmishes. SC2 still has so much potential, but it's held back by maps phasing out a lot of things that may have made sense back then but don't anymore. For example, when Zerg was OP, maps started making the 4th/5th very easy to attack into so that Terran/Protoss can threaten Zerg from exploding in economy. However, this also makes it hard for Terran/Protoss to hold that important 4th/5th base, and currently we see it benefiting Zerg more as they will explode in econ anyways and then start throwing swarms to suffocate T/P. Very open bases also makes crackling runbys very hard to defend for Protoss. I don't think having every expansion past your 3rd/4th be super open and easy to attack into should be a default feature of maps anymore. Re-examine map size. Yes large maps favor Zerg (and if large enough then Protoss as well), and disadvantage Terran due to immobility issues. This has been the main reason why despite bigger maps leading to much more back and forth games with more frequent fighting and chances to comeback, so we end up needing a mix of smaller maps for Terran. However there is a solution, what happened to Terran-favored features such as cliffs near expansions for you to drop/harass from, or cliffs around the map that you can use to put a tank or two on and fortify some forward position? What about far off expansions having high ground with ramps that they can take, wall off, and then put some production there (instead of grouping it all in their main which is dangerous, and takes longer to reinforce). This used to be a thing with 3-4 player spawn maps. But when maps started to become all 2-player, i feel that map makers weren't conscious of the loss of this feature. I can't think of a single 2 player map where a far off base has a high ground with a small ramp for example except Golden Wall with the upper center bases. We can have big maps with spread out gameplay while re-introducing Terran favored features to compensate for their lack of mobility on big maps. If we can further push LotV's direction of spread out gameplay + smaller skirmishes + less deathball play, then things can get even crazier, more exciting, and deeper than they currently are. Remember maps like Tal'Darim Alter where players could control different corners of the map and have production buildings spread out? Games on that map were often crazy, long, and action packed. There were so many different things you could decide to do, since your armies can only be in 1 place at a time and there's a lot of decision making. In WoL, people said the maps were too long and the games took too long to close out, citing that since players can take the other main/naturals players, they could rebuild and it was hard to close out a game. However, that's the kind of back and forth action that people find exciting about BW and that LotV succeeding in pushing the game more towards. Regarding depth, while we've seen many intense games at DH Atlanta and recent SC2, games still has a bit of "top vs bottom" syndrome. For example when you see a game where it's 7 base with 7 base, if one player loses a big fight hard then you can see them gg out. Even though they've built up to 7 bases, it's over? That's just weird to me. There's no fight or comeback potential left? A big reason for this is because of maps clumping the first 3rd/4th together, and making it harder and harder to take later bases by making them open and hard to defend. This means that if you lose a fight, it's easy for the opponent to snuff you out completely. Having farther bases with defensive features like high ground/ramps/chokes It would also make it so that basetrades have a chance at equalizing and can lead to crazy situations. Currently base trades are often just, each player races to kill the opponent base first and that's it. Very rarely you see things stabilize for a bit (for example both players manage to get 1 base up), yet when those situations do stabilize it becomes a memorable and exciting game. So why not let these moments happen more? (Like old games on Taldarim Alter?) Fights in SC2 are usually just 2 armies clashing. What about gameplay where there's lots of small armies moving around trying to take out fortified positions, break into expansions that are on high ground with chokes, and each player trying to intercept the other's units? When it takes more time to break into and destroy an expansion, it allows for more interactions from both players, rather than "oh i have the opponent out of position so ill A move my deathball to take this very open expansion out". It could be more like, oh the protoss has walled this expo's ramp and has a sentry with FF and a disruptor/immortal, so I'll bring a viper over to abduct the sentry so my roaches can break up it without trading terrible, oh they anticipated this and countered by warping in a HT and feedbacking, etc. (This situation doesn't make much sense but i think you get the basic gist, that's what BW is more like). I'm not saying current SC2 isn't exciting to watch. It's been very tense and good, and there has been much more back and forth fighting and chances for plays and comebacks by slowly trading better than your opponent. However, there is a big aspect of SC2 that is missing that's seen in earlier SC2 and in BW, it's what LotV has strived to push the gameplay more into, but I think the maps are still holding it back by having phased out common features of BW maps and earlier SC2 maps, and not re-introducing them. I've been making similar posts for the last few months so apologies if this post has been very rambly and incoherent, but i hope the basic gist of it is clear. I really hope that mapmakers and the community can re-examine these things. What you mention here, is a series of Fundamental issues in SC2. Army DPS Density is too high. Pathing makes the armies clump up too much. Army DPS Density is a heuristic I set up to parametrize this problem. UnitDPS*UnitRange/UnitArea, the position of the values can be played with, what matters is the core fundamental heuristic. That effective DPS of an army is a function of its area, its DPS and its range. The consequence of this, is that an smaller army fighting a larger army, needs to either have disproportionate unit range against the larger army, disproportionate unit DPS, or disproportionately small unit area (think; staked mutas/banshees). Otherwise it'll just be ran over... Which is what effectively happens in most cases and events. Worker Pairing generates effective resource symmetry favoring gas heavy units Because in SC2, you are effectively not able to supply efficiently "overmine" your opponent via over expansion, then Mineral only units can't be used to effectively swarm your opponent's gas heavy armies. At most they can be used for distraction attacks/harassment. But the problem there is precisely the same. Given that your gas efficient opponent will be in fewer bases than you, he'll be already more effective at defending them. So harassment with mineral only units is a waste of resources given that slow moving gas heavy units can easily deny harassment in that way. Therefore both players will try to maintain resource symmetry so as to avoid mineral only bases, because mineral mining can't be mined in more efficient ways than gas can. Which leads to the situation where neither player can play asymmetrically at all (you wont have 7 concurrent mineral only bases with 7 workers each pumping marines). Therefore if a player loses his gas heavy army. Then there is no recourse to fight the gas heavy army of the opponent. At which point the player can only surrender. There is simply no recourse, because of that fundamental lack of options to even try to fight a gas heavy army, with a more plentiful mineral heavy army. It is simply not possible because of this lack of resource asymmetry. The only, only, only time this was possible was during HotS with Bio-mine armies, and that gameplay arose because of the extra resource efficiency that Terran had mining minerals over the other races because of Mules (!). There are a few other ancillary things, which push SC2 to not have the comeback potential that you mention, like highground advantage, the ease with which you produce units, etc, but these are very much minor vs the two big issues outlined above. Other issue is the fact that you wont ever truly see a player mining 7 concurrent bases, if a player has got "7 bases" in SC2, the player will at most be mining from 3.5 bases at any given time, because that's the maximum effective threshold when you can mine at, going above that 3,5 number tends to cause efficiency problems to the player bc overly large amount of workers per total supply I personally think that if there is will, we could fix the problems above, but... idk if the will is there 🤔 | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada62 Posts
I really want tools like “degradeable” or “off-creep-bleed out rocks” because they allow us to tighten the map up a lot in the early game -and force certain rush paths while guaranteeing that super tightness is forcibly opened up as the game goes on. There’s a lot of tools that are just totally wasted as well, the prime example being rock towers which are literally a waste of a unit in the editor. What is the fuckin point of a rock tower with 500hp? I’ll wait. It’s just a glorified 2500hp rock instead of a 2000hp rock. Pointless. New, unique maps are possible but damn are they hard to make given the current balance. Like seriously, what the hell is liberator range? Why is it still in the game? To justify the existence of the fucking disruptor? Its sole purpose is to make the terrain around every single mineral layout look the exact same since you need 3 blocks of pathable terrain behind it to prevent lib abuse. I dream of one day making a base that is exposed to banshees or mutalisks or oracles that isn’t fucking outright BROKEN for liberators. This shit gets me so heated because it really doesn’t take a genius level intellect to see problems like these | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10280 Posts
On December 21 2023 17:40 WombaT wrote: Rambling and incoherent is my personal bread and butter so I always welcome your thoughts! I’d be interested to see some experimentation in base layouts, especially the standard 4th/5th and beyond positions. With a few exceptions you tend to see naturals and 3rds usually having pretty tight chokeholds, and those further out bases as being rather open. Surely we could see more variation with some far out, forward choke points leading into expansions that are still open. So a diligent defense and good movement can head off dedicated assaults, or runbys, but wily attacker, or a merely fortunate one, if they bypass the chokes can attack into a wide-open expansion. Or multiple chokes that are well-defensible, that lead into open spaces behind. Or have creative uses of various map features that can be manipulated, slow/speed fields, destructible or ‘re-structible’ rocks etc. I guess some maps have some of this don’t get me wrong. I’m generalising and don’t mean to do mapmakers a disservice. But a lot of bases are either ‘here is a convenient choke so you don’t die’ or ‘this base is wide open, good luck if you’re ever out of position’. What I’d like to see are open bases, but with forward positions that aren’t super convenient to immediate defence, but if they’re plugged that can lock down a position. Not sure if that rambling makes much sense but I did try! Glad someone enjoyed my wall  Yes exactly, we could definitely experiment with flipping things around so that closer bases are a bit more open or that some farther bases are more closed. Or having the kind of chokes that you mentioned where you can stuff out or plug the opponent out from a committed attack (unless they want to trade poorly).Regarding this, I'm actually SUPER happy with the current TLMC maps! I was watching Wardi's stream and i was SO happy to see that finally we are getting maps that reintroduce farther expansions being on high grounds with chokes/ramps. We're able to have 5 levels of elevation now so we need to take advantage of that!! I saw some corner bases have high ground + small/medium size ramps, and some have tiny chokes like Sulfur for the corner bases. Healing shrine is another way to make far bases possible to take over just choosing the next closest base to your first 3-4 bases. There are also some maps that make some expansions or areas of the map closed unless you break huge rocks or mine out mineral walls to get to them, making those expos like a semi-island. This is great!! There are so many ideas we can still try out and play with and it'll freshen up SC2 so much. Most of them are also avoiding the standard 3-4 base layout or at least changing them up a bit to not be as straightforward to take and defend. This is so awesome!!! And same with some maps having sparse cliffs around the map that you could position things on! Maps don't need to be 100% balanced in every MU, there's supposed to be a point in counterpicking, and I'm glad we have the larger 9 map pool + 3 vetoes to allow this. Things will naturally balance out when each player has their own counterpicks and enough variety in maps to come up with strategies to win or take advantage of your opponent's weakness. Having unique maps really puts the strategy back into things!! On December 22 2023 00:24 Kantuva wrote: What you mention here, is a series of Fundamental issues in SC2. [...] Happy to hear thoughts from a mapmaker!! Great points, and definitely agree with your assessment! Just to be clear, I don't think SC2 needs to be the same as BW of course and am not pushing for that exactly, but just pushing the direction LotV set a little further would lead to significant improvements for sure. As you mentioned army density DPS is really high in SC2, so it's difficult for the kind of situations I mentioned where you have a few units discourage, hold off, or trade effectively vs a much larger army trying to attack into an expansion. But we can try to compensate by by making those far off expansions have even more defensive features to make up for this, for example a really small choke/ramp like the one you have for your main (and like in BW maps). Sulfur in the current TLMC does this with the corner bases, it's a tiny choke plugged by a Xel'Naga Watchtower you have to destroy. We also have things like speed/slow zones, healing shrines, line of sight blockers, and rich minerals/gas that can make it worth it. Regarding the mineral/gas mining and lack of assymetry, well said as well. I wonder if it will be possible for Blizzard to publish maps to allow later expansions (past the first 4-5) to have less than the standard 8 mineral patches per base. Since it's already common for players in LotV to take many expansions, what if we made it so that some bases had 5-6 patches only, so that getting more mining bases would actually provide a slight income increase? We could balance things out ofc by increasing the # of bases slightly for example. This would also help reduce the potency of worker harass in SC2, because when workers are spread out more across different bases, you can't kill as many workers at any single base, which could help games be more stable and lead to a proper climax rather than both players simply losing all their econ and then the game ends with a small econ fight. On a side note, it's also regretable that with the Raven rework/redesigns, that Terran doesn't have a strong gas sink unit the way Protoss does with HT and Zerg has with Infestors if they succeed in taking many bases. On December 21 2023 23:58 Kantuva wrote: There are still several directions that can be explored when it comes to map layouts, but it takes serious experience, and committed experimentation to be able to find stable layouts as most layouts/maps will simply fail one way or another [...] I'm happy you feel confident we'll be able to find new stable kinds of map designs/layouts! Yes Golden Wall is a great example of an out-there design that ended up working and showing great and unique games. I feel GW really helped push the direction LotV strove for (and what BW is like). I didn't know at all about the limitation of tools, and that there are more tools that may be on the way that will help? That's great to hear!! I think it's totally fine to have the opponent's spawn be highlighted and not random. It definitely provides a unique kind of map, where the layout is randomized but you still know where the opponent is. A good middleground! On December 22 2023 00:56 OmniSkeptic wrote: The reality is you have to have a lot of easily takeable bases because those are the maps players/ judges feel comfortable playing on[...] Thanks for your opinion as well, I feel the same way, players/judges want to have straightforward maps where it's clear and obvious how to use the map so they can just do the same things they've practiced all the time. And it's understandable that many mapmakers may have actually had all these other ideas that they know had potential, but were discouraged from trying them out cus they knew the players/judges would be afraid and just pick the ones that looked comfy and familiar. So it's really awesome to see map contests encouraging more unique maps now! When maps are too comfy and standard, it only furthers SC2's "flaw" of where compared to BW, it's much easier to be "strategically pure" since execution/control/macro is easier in SC2. Whereas if we have more unique maps that players don't have 100% figured out, it allows for more chaos and diversity in gameplay and on the spot thinking in tournaments. They may feel uncomfortable, but it's fair because BOTH players are dealing with that (just like how in BW both players are struggling to do things in general), and it makes spectating much more fun and exciting as well. When there's a lot of fires players are trying to put out, it's a lot more exciting and dynamic. If they want more stability for earlier stages of a tourny where it's just Bo3, then sure you can ban some of those until you get to later rounds where you can counterpick more and have more chaotic games. Also I'm totally ok if the main/nat can't be too unique, as long as the 3rd/4th can have a little variety, and 5th onwards have more variety than they do now. It feels like for the last several years or more, that most maps are just recycling the same few things over and over. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a few standard maps in each pool, but it just felt like almost every map was standard and you can do the same thing on every map without really thinking about the map. | ||
|
Hanfy
Germany15 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16177 Posts
On December 22 2023 00:24 Kantuva wrote:... ... ... I personally think that if there is will, we could fix the problems above, but... idk if the will is there 🤔 thanks for the insights. interesting read! On December 22 2023 04:35 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Thanks for your opinion as well, I feel the same way, players/judges want to have straightforward maps where it's clear and obvious how to use the map so they can just do the same things they've practiced all the time. DISCLAIMER: part time Diamond player here. I'm in favour of maps that do not have a lot of easily takeable bases. If it messed up my build orders and strats so be it. I'll have to find new builds and strats. It keeps the game somewhat fresh. If I get rolled a few games until I figure it out... I do not care. I play for fun. On December 22 2023 00:56 OmniSkeptic wrote: ... New, unique maps are possible but damn are they hard to make given the current balance. Like seriously, what the hell is liberator range? Why is it still in the game? To justify the existence of the fucking disruptor? Its sole purpose is to make the terrain around every single mineral layout look the exact same since you need 3 blocks of pathable terrain behind it to prevent lib abuse. I dream of one day making a base that is exposed to banshees or mutalisks or oracles that isn’t fucking outright BROKEN for liberators. ... thx for the detailed insights. | ||
|
TossHeroes
281 Posts
| ||
|
FT.aCt)Sony
United States1047 Posts
I havent played Sc2 since 2012 so take my view with a grain of salt. But not seeing any 4 player maps for 1;1 is a huge setback. Yes, people want faster paced games and all that jazz. But just in the last week coming back to play, every game has similarities regarding openings. Ive seen just cheese, 3 base plays, and heavy econ into finally doing something. Implementing 4 player maps again, will negate some of these but also create longer based games where not only skill will come into play, but also stamina which is also a vital aspect. A variety of openings will also be added in if 4 player maps were made, and would also create some additional aspects of early game openings which could benefit T/P with proxy in the middle being half way to all starting locations and the like. | ||
|
Durnuu
13315 Posts
 | ||
|
Nezgar
Germany524 Posts
Trying to come up with wonky or specialized builds for non-standard maps is what made me enjoy much of the proleague era of games. It made me fall in love with sOs and similar players who were more than willing to throw out standard builds and go for unique strategies that worked well off those specific maps. It rewards quick thinking, good planning and creativity. And that, ultimately, makes for fun games in my eyes. Right now, most of the commentary of professional games usually boils down to "I wonder which of the 2 standard openings he is going to use" and that, together with the meta and balance in general, severely limits my enjoyment of the game as a spectator. It's why I usually watch the tournament scene for a couple months and then tune out for a year because every game is the same within that time period, in hopes that a year down the line the meta has shifted enough to be interesting again for someone who hasn't paid attention for a while. | ||
| ||
