|
Hello,
I have been wondering why aren't map makers pushing the limit with the designs of the maps. They seem to follow the generic rule of a map and we all got used to it. A new map means new tileset, different path layouts/spacings and expo placements. But why not go further? Why not create actual new gameplay with the map?
Why isn't for example a map only with gold. Gold everywhere. Let's see what that does? Why aren't more creative and specific maps made? Is it to make practice a lot easier? To move one strategy from map to map? I find that kinda boring, since I see the map to have a pretty small impact on the game at the moment (with some exceptions).
I would love to see some maps that require creative play and make up for weird strategies. As I see it now we apply the same principles of a map in different contexts and it can get boring.
I would love to see a map with only gold for example. One map with only islands, like in BW. One map with all the patches almost mined out to stimulate expoing and using small units to do great damage. You get the idea. Maps that create unique gameplay on them.
Thanks for reading and I am really curious what the community thinks about this issue.
|
Gimmicky does not mean it is good.
I think that very subtle differences in the maps will be enjoyable. It's why people enjoy Cloud Kingdom, it doesn't try to do anything particularly attention grabbing, but it very subtly alters the way you play, rather than just doing the same type of build/style on every map.
|
Racial balance is a pretty strong limiting factor.
|
Short answer, impossible to balance.
|
Because maps should be the field to play the game on, not the game itself.
I would probably lose all interest in watching starcraft if something like this started happening.
|
Because nobody would be willing to spend the time coming up with massively different strategies that can be used at most one game in a series. It would lower the level of play, and reward people who roll the dice and get lucky on which maps to practice on. I do think that it would be fun to screw around on, somewhat like monobattles, but definitely not something for competitive play.
|
Starcraft is balanced to a very high degree as it is right now, and even these maps which you say are almost identical have large swings in racial imbalance. Certain races benefit from some things and other races benefit from others, and noone wants a competitive scene where a game is decided simply by what map its played on.
and to look at one of your examples, on an island map, whats to stop a terran from taking a really fast expansion, since zergs will literally not be able to do anything until they have muta/drop/nydus out. This means that as a zerg the first 8 minutes of the game will be making 25 drones then waiting 5 minutes to be able to do anything.
|
Because maps primarily have to be good (read: balanced). Being funny is not an objective in any way, shape or form.
In fact, most maps that have gone overboard were also shit. Do you remember the following maps? * Slag Pits (no 3rd bases) * Jungle Basin (very hard to take 3rd bases) * Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine (very hard to defend natural with the cliff) * Blistering Sands (backdoor in the main) * Shakuras Plateau (earliest version had the backdoor rocks) The reason you don't see these ideas being worked with is because even Blizzard realizes that it's shit.
As to all gold: it would be incredibly terran favored. Marines are already cost effective against pretty much every unit in the game and they don't cost gas.
As you are referring to Brood War I'll also make a BW reference. Do you remember Reverse Temple? It was creative as hell, it was also shit.
|
I remember the neutral zerg eggs, stacked minerals, neutral protoss assimilators that close paths when destroyed, and mineral line walls in BW OSL/MSL maps. I wonder when we will get those stuff in SC2 league maps...
|
On February 26 2012 06:38 Palmar wrote: Because maps should be the field to play the game on, not the game itself.
I would probably lose all interest in watching starcraft if something like this started happening.
I agree with this comment.
The maps should change the way you approach attacks and positioning. Not your actual builds.
|
On February 26 2012 06:56 Littlemuff wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 06:38 Palmar wrote: Because maps should be the field to play the game on, not the game itself.
I would probably lose all interest in watching starcraft if something like this started happening. I agree with this comment. The maps should change the way you approach attacks and positioning. Not your actual builds.
They could change builds. Why not. If positioning changes that means potential for different points to exploit that change in positioning. A good map will have a variance of builds/strats that can be used on it and some of those might overlap onto other maps but that doesn't mean that all should overlap.
|
People need to stop confusing creativity with gimmicky. You're like asking for special trials for them to go through in a game show.
|
On February 26 2012 07:00 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 06:56 Littlemuff wrote:On February 26 2012 06:38 Palmar wrote: Because maps should be the field to play the game on, not the game itself.
I would probably lose all interest in watching starcraft if something like this started happening. I agree with this comment. The maps should change the way you approach attacks and positioning. Not your actual builds. They could change builds. Why not. If positioning changes that means potential for different points to exploit that change in positioning. Indeed. I'm fine with maps favoring builds that you normally wouldn't consider ideal; however they shouldn't promote builds that are completly useless on other maps.
For example I'm fine with maps like Daybreak being relatively safe to go CC/Nexus first on. (Which you would never do on for example XelNaga Caverns but can be used on for example Tal'Darim Altar).
What I am not fine with would be a new map that had such a hard to hold natural (due to either rush distance or the openness of it) that it almost requires 1base play. Such a map would be horribly imbalanced.
|
blizzard adding some innovation to maps often, but not adding something like capturable sensor towers or neutral bunkers etc.
And i don't think it is the time to do something like that. The game is still shifting like crazy, 2 expansion changing up units still to come. The game still evolving like crazy means new map features will cripple all the research that has been done and the game would have to be relearned again. That works if the game is mostly figured out, so no new strategies no new anything. Then you can change up maps, with destructible buildings for example or inverted high grounds to take some stuff out of bw. Also people experimented already with rich geysirs etcs. But adding new mechanics to maps would just stress out people and the level of play would decrease.
And all gold/rich geysir works and doesn't favor the terran. But the maps have to be bigger, as with the 6/1 setup you get a bit less then the current sc2 bases. And tested it on a selfmade map already, but i made the map terrible toss favored, the race that really is bad with maps that have golds.
|
I agree, the maps should be more varied.
However, the problem lies in the fact that when you apply the current "balanced" strategies on a new map, it has the potential to favour certain races at first. This can all be overcome with the development of different strategies and overall gameplay, but people are generally too quick to dismiss it as imbalance, and rather stick with what they're used to.
If map changes are implemented, they have to be done so in a gradual fashion so as to not disrupt balance too severely. Otherwise they will be dismissed altogether.
|
Maps need to/should be equally balanced for all races and suitable for competitive play. "Creative" maps are not suitable for competitive play, for the same reasons as you don't see round football fields or basketball courts with the hoops in the middle.
It simply wouldn't be the same game if every map had different conditions. Sure it might be entertaining for the spectators, but would only be annoying for players wanting to compete on a high level.
As for your examples: An all gold map would be extremely terran favoured in general, but would also make cheese twice as powerful (6pool/2gate with gold). Only islands would turn into "no rush 20" games. And a map with low resources would also promote cheese play. I dont know about you, but to me this does not sound like interesting gameplay.
|
football fields are imba, baseball stadiums are imba. imba imba imba
|
Only thing that we could see more of is more 4 player maps in the vein of Metalopolis, where all possible starting positions between 2 players are slightly different, just have to make sure the closest spawn isn't too close. This, in my opinion, is why we saw Metalopolis stick around for so long, even when it was fixed to prevent close spawns.
|
On February 26 2012 06:52 killerdog wrote:
and to look at one of your examples, on an island map, whats to stop a terran from taking a really fast expansion, since zergs will literally not be able to do anything until they have muta/drop/nydus out. This means that as a zerg the first 8 minutes of the game will be making 25 drones then waiting 5 minutes to be able to do anything.
This is something that has been overcome long ago by placing minerals, or destructible rocks so that you can't just land a command center.
|
On February 26 2012 07:05 FeyFey wrote: blizzard adding some innovation to maps often, but not adding something like capturable sensor towers or neutral bunkers etc.
Neutral armies sounds interesting though If you want to expand you need to defeat the bunker placed there instead of rocks.
Anyway, for the people saying that this means gimmicky you are just to caught in the routine of the maps.
And I think the reason I think this is because I personally don't see maps as in a boxing ring, but more as an custom environment where athletes run/parkour.
And creative maps doesn't mean that bad players can win using something strange. Not necessary. I can say exactly the opposite where bad players learn by heart builds and apply them on maps mindlessly.
|
|
|
|