|
Northern Ireland26037 Posts
On December 24 2023 23:40 Nezgar wrote:
I don't quite understand the adherence to this whole "Pros need to be able to play standard builds on every map". It's a strategy game, coming up with different strategies for different maps should be one of the core principles of the game. Instead we have a circlejerk about which pro has the best mechanics and can execute the same, small set of builds on every map, which has almost the same guiding principle as every other map in the pool.
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.
Yeah I do kind of agree, I mean in other games the maps do precipitate radically different approaches. In SC2 it’s more like you’ve got 7 different brands of cola. Sure there are slight differences but ultimately they’re still Cola
Although as a spectator I feel this is really on tournament organisers and their general adherence to the ladder pool. For the average player there’s enough to learn without throwing in a bunch of weird and wonky maps so I understand to a degree ladder playing it safe, but at a pro level it’s fun to see what they come up with.
I still feel Legacy just outright doesn’t suit 4 player maps that well, but there’s still space for experimentation. Golden Wall made for some great games for example, although most of my brethren who actively ladder didn’t enjoy actually playing it, they did love the top pros doing their thing on it
|
it s the moment where players understand that there s not really difference between medium ones and rush maps....
|
On December 24 2023 23:40 Nezgar wrote:
I don't quite understand the adherence to this whole "Pros need to be able to play standard builds on every map". It's a strategy game, coming up with different strategies for different maps should be one of the core principles of the game. Instead we have a circlejerk about which pro has the best mechanics and can execute the same, small set of builds on every map, which has almost the same guiding principle as every other map in the pool.
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.
SO agree! Omg, non-standard maps could really bring out sOs's strengths and allow him to strategize again!!
|
i agree 3-4 player maps should make a comeback
|
On December 24 2023 05:06 Durnuu wrote:There is a level of variety in the current map pool? 
was about to write the same exact post, hehe
|
Canada8989 Posts
I think at the moment it's not to bad since equilibrium and Radhuset are quite different from standard map, but I'd agree that as a whole SC2 has had a lot of difficulty to inovate with their map in the last 4-5 years.
And we really need to bring in some 7-8 base maps back into the rotation, force zerg to mix stuff up.
|
3 or 4 spawn maps need to make return. Fuck balance
|
3 or 4 spawn maps need to make return.
|
I didn't mind Altitude or Pride of Altaris but if Radhuset Station is the diveristy people want in their map pool, I'm against that. It's the first map in years that I consider vetoing because it actually limits the total amount of ways to play the game. Yeah, I admit it supports certain swarm host play styles but that's not worth making the early game meaningless and the mid game severely dumbed down.
Tiny maps like Beckett Industries were annoying but I was okay with them. I think it might be possible to make them work with speed or slow zones. That's the kind of diversity I would support. Huge maps with pocket expansions is not what I want to see in my map pool.
|
Bring back Dasan station!
|
On December 21 2023 17:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 17:24 Harris1st wrote: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 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
I think I fundamentally disagree that it would be too punishing to scout the wrong way as compared to BW or WoL/HotS, but I think having multiple spawn locations but even with fixed spawn paradigms is still a huge improvement over forced 2p maps. Even if you have forced cross spawns or whatever, you can still have a lot more fun and crazy shit happening with different map layouts.
Older renditions of starcraft still had plenty of consequences for scouting the wrong way, and who's to say that changing the dynamics in the way scouting works is a bad thing too (i.e sending multiple workers out or something of that nature). I think it'd help add some level of a breath of fresh air, even though SC2 is currently hamstrung by some other stuff (like the dps issues mentioned elsewhere in the thread).
I don't think I have the brainpower to articulate specifics on this very well right now - but I think it would go a long way in helping lessen the cloud kingdom-itis we have right now...
|
Northern Ireland26037 Posts
On January 02 2024 07:44 Master of DalK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 17:55 WombaT wrote:On December 21 2023 17:24 Harris1st wrote: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 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 I think I fundamentally disagree that it would be too punishing to scout the wrong way as compared to BW or WoL/HotS, but I think having multiple spawn locations but even with fixed spawn paradigms is still a huge improvement over forced 2p maps. Even if you have forced cross spawns or whatever, you can still have a lot more fun and crazy shit happening with different map layouts. Older renditions of starcraft still had plenty of consequences for scouting the wrong way, and who's to say that changing the dynamics in the way scouting works is a bad thing too (i.e sending multiple workers out or something of that nature). I think it'd help add some level of a breath of fresh air, even though SC2 is currently hamstrung by some other stuff (like the dps issues mentioned elsewhere in the thread). I don't think I have the brainpower to articulate specifics on this very well right now - but I think it would go a long way in helping lessen the cloud kingdom-itis we have right now...
I think it’s possible but it’ll take both some innovation from map makers to make them work, and a hell of a lot of collaborative play testing from pros etc.
Whatever the reasons, it does appear more difficult to make them work, whereas in SC2’s previous iterations it seemed easy enough to make a few tweaks and we had some excellent 4 player maps that got plenty of play. Whether it’s actually more difficult due to Legacy’s eco/tech acceleration, a lack of actually trying or something in the middle, I’m unsure would be interesting to get some mapmaker input.
I’m just pessimistic as we’re not even getting much variety while sticking to 2 player maps currently, never mind trying to get 3/4 player ones to work. Would love to see it though don’t get me wrong!
|
Dominican Republic627 Posts
The four-player map Antiga Shipyard was a very good map what about playing it in LOTV?
what about a map inspired on Scrap Station?
|
On January 02 2024 11:55 WombaT wrote:
Older renditions of starcraft still had plenty of consequences for scouting the wrong way, and who's to say that changing the dynamics in the way scouting works is a bad thing too (i.e sending multiple workers out or something of that nature).
Having to send two workers would also be far less punishing in LotV than WoL because you start with double the workers.
|
Northern Ireland26037 Posts
On January 05 2024 10:13 DaveyJosiah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2024 11:55 WombaT wrote:
Older renditions of starcraft still had plenty of consequences for scouting the wrong way, and who's to say that changing the dynamics in the way scouting works is a bad thing too (i.e sending multiple workers out or something of that nature). Having to send two workers would also be far less punishing in LotV than WoL because you start with double the workers.
It’s punishing in the way the game’s phases flow
Someone on TL coined the ‘ETA triangle’ idea of eco/tech/army and tradeoffs being a necessity to push one side. BW works in a similar fashion. A greedy eco or tech opening leaves you vulnerable to an all-in response if your opponent sniffs it out.
In LoTV you almost get 2/3 of those things by default, you’re into full 2 base saturation, with a third up and infrastructure online very, very quickly comparatively. Which leaves a very thin window to punish and is why at the pro level most pushes are premeditated timings that are very on meta, and not reactionary ones. A good example being Byun’s first marine push off his 2 rax, which is telegraphed very early by both the additional rax and its forward placement.
One window does remain pretty similar, the first worker scout before units are out, and it still sniffs out very committed cheese, or absurdly greedy openers. But a lot else is very different with the accelerated early game.
Look I hate to be the naysayer and I’d like to see 4 player maps work, I just think they’re fraught with problems.
How does a Toss punish a greedy Zerg opener, especially cross position, if they scout late/slow down their opener with a multi worker scout? They struggle as is on 2 player configurations with a guaranteed scout
Or how does Terran manage the mobility disadvantage against both races if we’re talking cross spawns again?
Part of why I think 4 player maps used to work fine was you weren’t immediately into 3 bases, and 5+ with the eco to constantly remax come the late game. Zerg’s mobility advantage was still there, but a few disastrous engagements and they’d be up shit creek, which is much less so the case now.
Last 4 player map I recall offhand was a while back, TY against Dark in either GSL or ST and followed that pattern of Zerg gradually smothering a Terran that we see in top level 2 player games, but more pronounced and hopeless than it that domain, where top Terrans still have parity
|
United States1901 Posts
On January 06 2024 02:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2024 10:13 DaveyJosiah wrote:On January 02 2024 11:55 WombaT wrote:
Older renditions of starcraft still had plenty of consequences for scouting the wrong way, and who's to say that changing the dynamics in the way scouting works is a bad thing too (i.e sending multiple workers out or something of that nature). Having to send two workers would also be far less punishing in LotV than WoL because you start with double the workers. It’s punishing in the way the game’s phases flow Someone on TL coined the ‘ETA triangle’ idea of eco/tech/army and tradeoffs being a necessity to push one side. BW works in a similar fashion. A greedy eco or tech opening leaves you vulnerable to an all-in response if your opponent sniffs it out. In LoTV you almost get 2/3 of those things by default, you’re into full 2 base saturation, with a third up and infrastructure online very, very quickly comparatively. Which leaves a very thin window to punish and is why at the pro level most pushes are premeditated timings that are very on meta, and not reactionary ones. A good example being Byun’s first marine push off his 2 rax, which is telegraphed very early by both the additional rax and its forward placement. One window does remain pretty similar, the first worker scout before units are out, and it still sniffs out very committed cheese, or absurdly greedy openers. But a lot else is very different with the accelerated early game. Look I hate to be the naysayer and I’d like to see 4 player maps work, I just think they’re fraught with problems. How does a Toss punish a greedy Zerg opener, especially cross position, if they scout late/slow down their opener with a multi worker scout? They struggle as is on 2 player configurations with a guaranteed scout Or how does Terran manage the mobility disadvantage against both races if we’re talking cross spawns again? Part of why I think 4 player maps used to work fine was you weren’t immediately into 3 bases, and 5+ with the eco to constantly remax come the late game. Zerg’s mobility advantage was still there, but a few disastrous engagements and they’d be up shit creek, which is much less so the case now. Last 4 player map I recall offhand was a while back, TY against Dark in either GSL or ST and followed that pattern of Zerg gradually smothering a Terran that we see in top level 2 player games, but more pronounced and hopeless than it that domain, where top Terrans still have parity
A good four player map can (and often is) better than a bad two player map. But, a good two player map is better than a good two player map.
|
On December 24 2023 05:06 Durnuu wrote:There is a level of variety in the current map pool?
Of course there is, did you play them at all? Goldenaura has turtly chokes and a gold base. Alcyone has two gold bases walled off by minerals. Radhuset has a hidden base locked behind mineral wall and a wall of debris, AND side gold bases. Hecate has mixed gold. Equilibrium has two lowground gold bases and has massive size. If that's not enough for you, maybe try Arcade games where you can throw whatever gimmicks you want at the game.
There's a reason why the map pools look the way they do, it's because it's balanced AND fun. Adding a bunch of gimmicks is going to cause a bunch of abusable, cheesy, frustrating strats. Not to mention it's going to turn balance upside down. Are we really willing to open pandora's box on balance for SC2, in 2023? When the game receives one balance patch a year?
|
Dominican Republic627 Posts
i think a way to make the games less one deathball vs deathball is just making units last a little bit longer
they die pretty quick tbh.
|
On January 02 2024 11:55 WombaT wrote:
Whatever the reasons, it does appear more difficult to make them work, whereas in SC2’s previous iterations it seemed easy enough to make a few tweaks and we had some excellent 4 player maps that got plenty of play. Whether it’s actually more difficult due to Legacy’s eco/tech acceleration, a lack of actually trying or something in the middle, I’m unsure would be interesting to get some mapmaker input.
I’m just pessimistic as we’re not even getting much variety while sticking to 2 player maps currently, never mind trying to get 3/4 player ones to work. Would love to see it though don’t get me wrong!
In my opinion it is more difficult to make a 4 player map in LOTV. The main issue for me is that cross spawns on 4 player maps have to have a very large rush distance compared to cross spawns on 2 maps, simply because of Pythagoras’s. Making a normal cross spawn rush distance means cardinal spawns will have too short a rush distance. Why is this a problem in LOTV? 2 reasons.
1) main base economy saturation happens so quickly that the player cannot build workers efficiently, so they must pick something else. Tech is relatively cheap in LOTV since you have many workers and you only need to invest let’s say 150 minerals before you have to wait for that structure to complete to be able to spend on the next one. So that leaves two options: fighting units or expansion. Since tech costs nothing, however, if you go for units by the time you get there your opponent is likely going to have to the tech to deal with it. So basically every player just expands immediately safely. This combination between high cross spawn rush distance and the game already rewarding immediate expansion leads to greedy macro play from both sides meaning the players aren’t interacting which is boring. However, if one player plays greedy in order to be competitive in the cross spawn matchup and the other player cheeses, the cheese is difficult to scout and quickly funded in LOTV so they die.
2) Zerg. I don’t know if this happened quickly or slowly but somewhere along the way Zerg went from a race with both aggressive and defensive styles who’s mechanics generally most rewarded macro play due to their economy scaling the least linearly, into a race that basically sucks unless they’re on creep. Large maps like 4p maps means creep has a non-linearly-growing higher total surface area - meaning the larger the map the better creep gets particular due to vision. Combine that with the fact that even a single hatchery can result in 20 drones being popped out instantly on the opposite side of the map from which you are currently attacking no matter which way you go, the worker-harass stage of the game basically stops existing and so T and P players are essentially trying to take one great trade and then kill the Zerg before their infinite money and larvae can remax.
My attempted solution in my map Gridworm to Zerg was to use creep blockers and tight chokes to counter-act the large size and high base count but this tends to exacerbate the “Zerg can’t kill their opponent” issue. But even this map isn’t truly 4p. It’s really more of a variable 3 player map. https://imgur.com/a/2iDyfjn
|
Northern Ireland26037 Posts
On January 13 2024 20:11 OmniSkeptic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2024 11:55 WombaT wrote:
Whatever the reasons, it does appear more difficult to make them work, whereas in SC2’s previous iterations it seemed easy enough to make a few tweaks and we had some excellent 4 player maps that got plenty of play. Whether it’s actually more difficult due to Legacy’s eco/tech acceleration, a lack of actually trying or something in the middle, I’m unsure would be interesting to get some mapmaker input.
I’m just pessimistic as we’re not even getting much variety while sticking to 2 player maps currently, never mind trying to get 3/4 player ones to work. Would love to see it though don’t get me wrong! In my opinion it is more difficult to make a 4 player map in LOTV. The main issue for me is that cross spawns on 4 player maps have to have a very large rush distance compared to cross spawns on 2 maps, simply because of Pythagoras’s. Making a normal cross spawn rush distance means cardinal spawns will have too short a rush distance. Why is this a problem in LOTV? 2 reasons. 1) main base economy saturation happens so quickly that the player cannot build workers efficiently, so they must pick something else. Tech is relatively cheap in LOTV since you have many workers and you only need to invest let’s say 150 minerals before you have to wait for that structure to complete to be able to spend on the next one. So that leaves two options: fighting units or expansion. Since tech costs nothing, however, if you go for units by the time you get there your opponent is likely going to have to the tech to deal with it. So basically every player just expands immediately safely. This combination between high cross spawn rush distance and the game already rewarding immediate expansion leads to greedy macro play from both sides meaning the players aren’t interacting which is boring. However, if one player plays greedy in order to be competitive in the cross spawn matchup and the other player cheeses, the cheese is difficult to scout and quickly funded in LOTV so they die. 2) Zerg. I don’t know if this happened quickly or slowly but somewhere along the way Zerg went from a race with both aggressive and defensive styles who’s mechanics generally most rewarded macro play due to their economy scaling the least linearly, into a race that basically sucks unless they’re on creep. Large maps like 4p maps means creep has a non-linearly-growing higher total surface area - meaning the larger the map the better creep gets particular due to vision. Combine that with the fact that even a single hatchery can result in 20 drones being popped out instantly on the opposite side of the map from which you are currently attacking no matter which way you go, the worker-harass stage of the game basically stops existing and so T and P players are essentially trying to take one great trade and then kill the Zerg before their infinite money and larvae can remax. My attempted solution in my map Gridworm to Zerg was to use creep blockers and tight chokes to counter-act the large size and high base count but this tends to exacerbate the “Zerg can’t kill their opponent” issue. But even this map isn’t truly 4p. It’s really more of a variable 3 player map. https://imgur.com/a/2iDyfjn
Thanks for the input, mostly matches up with my intuition but it’s always nice to get the perspective of people who’ve actually sat down and made maps and experimented to see what works, or doesn’t. Agreed on pretty much everything!
There’s a fine line between overly predictable, and frustratingly volatile, and I feel just how the eco scales faster and changes windows pushes 4 player maps into the latter category.
If I cut a corner to play greedy and delay my scout and die to a cheese on a 2 player map, that’s an issue with playing greedily. But if I just scout unluckily only to see a push moving out to kill me in a minute, that’s frustrating. Likewise if I try to play very safe and double scout only to arrive at my opponent’s base who’s blindly playing hyper greedy, but I’ve delayed my eco/tech buildup too much to actually reactively punish. PvR was a terrible experience in Wings for quite similar reasons, in that you had to do quite specific openers vs different races, but you’re playing rock/paper/scissors and gambling, or doing a catch-all but quite bad build.
Did you get much playtesting and feedback on your map? I like the idea of reducing potential creep spread in certain areas.
But yes I can definitely see the Zerg issue, the last competitive game I recall was Dark having a crazy amount of the map against TY who could never gain sufficient momentum to do a damaging push and just died to attrition. Which is a pattern you already see on 2 player maps, 4s just exacerbate it.
On the other hand, too small, or alternatively too chokey and Zergs really start to struggle with the issue of if they’re not trading and remaxing, or have a supply advantage (as in ZvP mid game) they don’t have too many great compositions for a max, high tech army fight.
I think a wider problem is the game has had years and years of being a very standardised game, with a pretty consistent meta and maps that largely tick a large amount of the same boxes.
Trying to do something different and it almost gets dismissed out of hand. New maps could be perfectly functional and have their own meta eventually, but they never get given a sufficient shot to see that potentially develop if they don’t fit current standards neatly. Which is a bit of a shame really
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
