|
Everyone hates the map pool, by and large. We all know the gameplay issues--early game all-ins and gimmicky play are way too strong on many of them, and several are badly racially imbalanced.
But there's another issue with them that I don't think has gotten enough attention--small maps are essentially a substantial nerf to several units. These are:
Mothership (recall) Nydus Worm Warp Prism
What do these 3 units have in common? They are first and foremost ways to travel instantaneously (or at least much faster) over long distances, and they each come with some notable drawbacks. Motherships take forever to tech to and are expensive as hell. Nydus Worms are too noisy to be stealthy, easy to kill and don't contribute to combat. Warp Prisms are fragile, take a while to go into warp-in mode, and take away from Immortal/Colossus production time.
Now, instantaneous travel is always useful. But on a map where units can traverse the entire map in a relatively short period of time, how useful is it, really? Most of the time you can't Nydus or set up a Warp Prism in the opponent's base, so you're basically just reducing the time it takes to reinforce. And on pretty much all of these maps (excepting maybe Shakuras and cross-position Meta), the time it takes to reinforce is not that long.
This has a substantial impact on the cost-benefit analysis of making these units. Yes, Nydusing around the map would always be nice...but is it really worth having fewer actual combat units, when with good creep spread you can get where you want very quickly anyway? Yes, recalling an army or having a flying pylon is great and all, but if you just park a pylon halfway to the opponent's base you'll be reinforcing super quickly anyway. Wouldn't you rather just have a Colossus or some Void Rays?
When the maps are small and the races have the ability to travel pretty quickly anyway (either via creep spread or warping in from normal pylons), expensive, slow-to-build and/or fragile means of faster travel simply don't make sense most of the time.
But what if the maps were larger? What if, even with good creep spread it would take Zerg a long time to move around the map? What if it took a long time to get probes across a map, so that if the enemy brought down your forward pylon it would take a long time to get another one up and/or march your army across--and regardless, getting mech units across would take a looong time?
If that were the case, I think these transport units would become substantially more appealing. A good Nydus network wouldn't just be a convenience...it would be the difference between effective and ineffective base defense, and it would allow Zerg to run absolute circles around a Terran death ball. A warp prism or a mothership might not just be a gimmick, but rather a crucial tool in making sure Toss could get their units--especially the heavy robo ones--across the map and where they needed them.
|
Yet another compelling argument for featuring larger maps. Hopefully Blizzard will come around one of these days.
Of course, iccup maps are already in use by some tournaments. How is that working?
|
I think everyone by now knows and acknowledges that we really, desperately need to have better, bigger maps in tournaments. The only question now is if anyone is ever going to actually do something about it.
But this is indeed a good point which had occurred to me before. The Nydus Worm's allowances of instant, unlimited travel between locations and the Warp Prism's power field would indeed be much, much stronger in larger maps.
|
An actually decent writeup on the role of maps in determining unit effectiveness. I like it.
And yes, everyone already hates the map pool. But judging by Blizzard and Gretech reaction, for now we just have to deal with it.
|
I'm against large map because it favored turtle play and it kill most of the early pressure... You cant pressure a terran with 2 stalker or 1 zealot 2 stalkers if the map make the terran have like 3-4 more units.
Larger map kill the game in many ways, imo we should have both so we can have multiple strategy's.
|
Large maps disadvantage terran. Dt's+ mainly burrowed banelings slow down terran a lot. Small maps means that mules shine because mule income divided by income from scv is highest on 1-2 base.
terran is on a time limit to win.
|
On December 08 2010 13:48 Yokoblue wrote: I'm against large map because it favored turtle play and it kill most of the early pressure... You cant pressure a terran with 2 stalker or 1 zealot 2 stalkers if the map make the terran have like 3-4 more units.
Larger map kill the game in many ways, imo we should have both so we can have multiple strategy's.
"turtle play" is called macro games, and it's what made brood war good.
|
On December 08 2010 13:48 Yokoblue wrote: I'm against large map because it favored turtle play and it kill most of the early pressure... You cant pressure a terran with 2 stalker or 1 zealot 2 stalkers if the map make the terran have like 3-4 more units.
Larger map kill the game in many ways, imo we should have both so we can have multiple strategy's.
I disagree. You still can have early pressure, but in a larger map you just need to sacrifice a bit more econ to get there. Which makes sense - since you shouldn't be able to pressure for free.
|
Completely agree. Same thing with general racial dynamics.
|
Question: Why would tournaments benefit from larger maps when it drags games out, reduces aggression and generally makes less appealing games to watch? Big Macro battles are really boring to watch. It's 25 minutes of setup and then it's over after one or two battles.
Not to mention that it's a direct nerf to terran mech which is the most dependent on controlling the terrain. So, in light of that, how would you buff terran mech to accommodate these larger maps given that zerg and toss both have strong answers to it?
|
i do agree we need more maps, i don't think all the maps in the pool are bad, i just think we need more. MOOOOORREE
|
Early pressure would still exist--a Terran can still fly a rax over to rally marines early on, Toss can stil pull off proxy pylon or cannon cheese, Zerg can still 6 pool or 5 or 7roach rush--it'd just be more all-in, and the defending player would have a bit longer to react. Which IMO, is a good thing. Have you been watching this GSL? 1 game out of 5 being cheese is a fine and necessary part of the game. 4 out of 5 is basically unwatchable.
But I digress. there are lots of reasons to want larger maps, but this thread is about the units which would benefit the most from them.
|
On December 08 2010 13:57 Duese wrote: Question: Why would tournaments benefit from larger maps when it drags games out, reduces aggression and generally makes less appealing games to watch? Big Macro battles are really boring to watch. It's 25 minutes of setup and then it's over after one or two battles.
Watching all-ins in honestly almost half the games gets more boring in my opinion. Macro games don't have to be boring at all! At least not to me. All-ins aren't boring for me either really, but we need more variety
|
On December 08 2010 13:57 Duese wrote: Question: Why would tournaments benefit from larger maps when it drags games out, reduces aggression and generally makes less appealing games to watch? Big Macro battles are really boring to watch. It's 25 minutes of setup and then it's over after one or two battles.
Watch some professional BW, which is played on large maps. There's vastly more jockeying for position and skirmishes made possible by the map size.
Not to mention that it's a direct nerf to terran mech which is the most dependent on controlling the terrain. So, in light of that, how would you buff terran mech to accommodate these larger maps given that zerg and toss both have strong answers to it?
Hellions are fast. Large maps would not nerf hellions. Furthermore, large maps make gas-heavy compositions (Tanks/Thors eat lots of gas) more affordable.
But I agree that Terran mech should be buffed.
|
On December 08 2010 13:52 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 13:48 Yokoblue wrote: I'm against large map because it favored turtle play and it kill most of the early pressure... You cant pressure a terran with 2 stalker or 1 zealot 2 stalkers if the map make the terran have like 3-4 more units.
Larger map kill the game in many ways, imo we should have both so we can have multiple strategy's. "turtle play" is called macro games, and it's what made brood war good.
Depends on the watcher, like some1 up there said : Game with macro for 20 min dont make a game more apealing then 2 side attacking each other all the time.
Leenock vs Clide was great because of constant aggression, on larger map it wouldnt be the same/possible
|
On December 08 2010 13:57 Duese wrote: Question: Why would tournaments benefit from larger maps when it drags games out, reduces aggression and generally makes less appealing games to watch? Big Macro battles are really boring to watch. It's 25 minutes of setup and then it's over after one or two battles.
Really? Are you talking about sc2?
Macro games are the best to watch. We actually see late game thinking and unit composition see how good a player. All the best pro games are long ones, no doubt. I don't know what you're watching. Macro games are boring on a lower level(where it really is 1 battle to determine the game), but with the pros there's abuse, preventing expansions, and usually plenty of action.
Plus once the game becomes more figured out the battles will be closer and there won't be any 1 sided big battles.
|
@Duese
Small maps mean that games are prone to build order losses because players have difficulty adjusting builds in the short time available before timing attacks arrive. This encourages conservative play with an early game focus and restrictive builds. One side effect is that many games end after a single timing attack or the rebound and before either player has gotten a third base.
Larger maps reduce the risk of expansion and reduce the likelihood of build order losses. As a result players have more freedom to chose whether to go for early agression vs. fast tech vs. economy-oriented builds. Players also get larger armies faster and have strong economies that can support heavy losses in battles. Large maps also allow battle fronts to shift around a bit in the center of the map (instead of one player getting rapidly overtaken and overwhelmed -- Steppes of War, I'm looking at you). Players can chose where to engage and what turf to fight over. The net result is larger, more dynamic battles with more reinforcement and more army trading. Harassment also becomes more effective so players will do it more often, and everybody loves to watch good harassment.
|
On December 08 2010 14:02 Yokoblue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 13:52 Fa1nT wrote:On December 08 2010 13:48 Yokoblue wrote: I'm against large map because it favored turtle play and it kill most of the early pressure... You cant pressure a terran with 2 stalker or 1 zealot 2 stalkers if the map make the terran have like 3-4 more units.
Larger map kill the game in many ways, imo we should have both so we can have multiple strategy's. "turtle play" is called macro games, and it's what made brood war good. Depends on the watcher, like some1 up there said : Game with macro for 20 min dont make a game more apealing then 2 side attacking each other all the time. Leenock vs Clide was great because of constant aggression, on larger map it wouldnt be the same/possible Technically the best of the Clide/Leenock (imo) was on Shak which is a pretty big map. I'd enjoy a better overall mix of large/mid-range maps, I definetely wouldn't want a pool with almost all large maps though. Hoping for some additional maps from Blizz once the ladder is reset (which will probably be in time for the big A and S code tournies).
|
Great post. We desperately need new, larger maps.
|
Canada10904 Posts
On December 08 2010 13:57 Duese wrote: Question: Why would tournaments benefit from larger maps when it drags games out, reduces aggression and generally makes less appealing games to watch? Big Macro battles are really boring to watch. It's 25 minutes of setup and then it's over after one or two battles.
Not to mention that it's a direct nerf to terran mech which is the most dependent on controlling the terrain. So, in light of that, how would you buff terran mech to accommodate these larger maps given that zerg and toss both have strong answers to it?
I disagree. based on what happened with SCBW, you never just leave your opponent to max up a 200 pop before attacking. Constantly you would be fighting to control high ground, deny expansions, harassing expansion with drops, poking in and out to armies out of position.
Bigger maps would allow for a greater variety of aggression and provide more space for maneuvers.
I don't mind the occasional all-in rush game, but I'm still not used to the GSL games where so many are over by the 10-15 min mark. 25-30 min games feel a little more epic. (Just don't want too many 60 min stalemates or Tasteless might break out the monkey milk...)
|
|
|
|