|
I have been wanting to create a couple of maps that is heavily favored for one race and pretty much balanced for the other 2 races for fun. But, due to my somewhat mediocore game knowledge (I'm Platinum on SEA and NA, I offrace on NA though and I barely ladder there due to lag), I couldn't really figure out what exactly makes a map imbalanced for one race and unfavorable for the others without playing on it first.
So now what I want to ask from the community is this: what exactly makes a map Terran/Protoss/Zerg favored and how exactly does it makes the map imbalanced?
I'll take a ladder map for example: Antiga Shipyard. People are saying that this map is Terran favored because of the high ground in the middle with a watchtower on top of it, also that your supposedly "fourth" is located just right below that high ground in the middle. If Terran at the very least occupies that spot, the Terran will have vision of the center, and it becomes very hard to secure the middle expansions since Terran can snipe it from above. This matters in TvZ because you really really need a fourth expansion when the Terran already has a third because as Zerg, you want to always be 1 base ahead from your opponent, and since the Terran can easily occupy the center and siege up on the high ground, it makes taking the center expansion very hard for the Zerg, which means the Zerg will have to expand somewhere else. And in this case, on the supposedly "fifth" expansion.
Also, since the map also has the shortest rush distance on the map pool right now (as far as I recall), this makes aggresive play from the Terran really favorable and effective.
I might be missing some points here regarding balance on the map, but since this is just an example I'm not going to bother adding all of the points that I know that makes this map "favored".
So, can you name the characteristics of a map (chokes, expansion locations, flanking routes and high ground positioning, etc.) that could break the game due to imbalance? And what race would benefit from that?
|
Terran and Protoss versus zerg favor a natural ramp where you can wall off with 3 buildings (ie shakuras)
T/P also like having a close third ( ie entombed) as it is easier to defend vs ling runbys
Metropolis is extremely terran favored as demonstrated by MVP vs Nestea in IEM. MVP locked down his side of the map with 4 planetary fortresses blocking the only 2 attack routes to his 5 bases. Nestea had no way to cause damage and wascrushed by a maxed terran army.
If you want to look at a good new map look at GSL Whirlwind
|
United States1699 Posts
I think you can boil it down to how well each race can expand, and how well they can engage. There needs to be spots where different army compositions (at least 1, preferably more for each race) can engage against other compositions favorably or at the very least evenly (unless it's something like a composition which isn't supposed to be favored in a direct fight, but use mobility or something). You need to make the third and fourth bases possible to take in every matchup, which is especially constricting in PvZ.
I think there's more to it than that, but those are the big things. Making a fair battlefield isn't too hard, you can just make sure that there's enough open space that any composition can do alright.
Ability to expand and continue expanding if the game goes longer I think is the most important thing you can balance before doing any testing. You need to make it possible for any race to get up to 4-5 bases on a map, and make sure Zerg can stay up a base when they need to be. This means you can't have something like an easy three bases and a really hard fourth, or easy two and a really hard third. Rush distance effects this.
|
well if you want a map that sucks for zerg make tons of narrow choke points and no open space, make destructable rocks at the 3rd and 4th bases and put high ground behined the mineral line at the natural, altho i dont see the point in making an imbalanced map but to each his own.. also every mineral should be able to be hit by tanks and collosus.
|
On August 19 2012 01:07 CTSChao wrote:
Metropolis is extremely terran favored as demonstrated by MVP vs Nestea in IEM. MVP locked down his side of the map with 4 planetary fortresses blocking the only 2 attack routes to his 5 bases. Nestea had no way to cause damage and wascrushed by a maxed terran army.
This is the logic that got ghosts nerfed.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/528_Crux_Metropolis
TvZ: 29-56 (34.1%)
|
On August 19 2012 02:19 xPabt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 01:07 CTSChao wrote:
Metropolis is extremely terran favored as demonstrated by MVP vs Nestea in IEM. MVP locked down his side of the map with 4 planetary fortresses blocking the only 2 attack routes to his 5 bases. Nestea had no way to cause damage and wascrushed by a maxed terran army. This is the logic that got ghosts nerfed. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/528_Crux_MetropolisTvZ: 29-56 (34.1%)
Oh wow, it's actually more imbalanced for zerg than Steppes of War was for terran. Why is this map still in tournaments?
|
@Op i know you said you didnt want to touch on all the points that make Antiga terran favored, but I think you missed the main ones...
I think for the basic structure of a balanced map, Antiga hits the nail right on the head, possibly even more so than Daybreak (Daybreak however s a better map for other reasons). On Antiga, every race has an easy time holding its natural and its 3rd, and cheese is still somewhat viable due to the medium length nature of the map (assuming cross positions only)
Antiga's balance assumes that each race can fairly easily hold 3 bases, and whoever outplayed the opponent with those 3 bases will be able to take the middle ground, thus have access to an easy 4th base while controlling the high ground and watchtower... This is generally the case, but in a 3 base vs 3 base situation Terran or Toss have a natural advantage vs Zerg, due to zerg wanting the extra income for less cost effective early/midgame units, this is not always the case with current balance and we now sometimes see Zerg managing to take the middle of Antiga with broodlords off of 3 base, which of course then gives them the ability to take the middle 4th, like we've seen a few times in this weeks IEM.
All that was basically to say I think that as a EXTREME of the standard model, Antiga is probably as close as we have.
Back on topic I think some previous posters outlined most of it, the ability for every race to expand constantly is probably the most important, for example Terminus had huge problems for Terran and Protoss getting past 4 base, even though the layout of the map was decent.
Layout of the natural and defense of the 3rd comes into play mostly for protoss, but affects the other races a fair amount too, to give another example map, Dual sight had great counter attack paths, was a nice small size (which was unusual when it was introduced, most new maps were like Tal'darim or Terminus sized), but was horrible for toss because it was hard to defend your natural and 3rd, due to the huge arc on the natural and large distance away on the 3rd.
Lastly in importance of the 3rd major one is (as others have mentioned) having a mix of defensible choke points and open attack areas, if a map is lacking in either it can be too easy for Zerg or bio Terran to get a massive concave/surround, or if its too chokey, siege and splash units become too powerful.
Overall I think it's a combination of those things in general (plus alot of other smaller ones) that makes Daybreak our current map standard, Its easy to hold your expo and 3rd, but they can both be punished by builds if you lack scouting, a player who play's methodical can eventually take 5 bases regardless of race or midgame slip that puts them in an unrecoverable situation. Daybreak also has alot of up and down ramps coming into the 4th and 5th bases, but a nice open area in the middle where alot of the endgame engagements end up happening.
|
I have been wanting to create a couple of maps that is heavily favored for one race and pretty much balanced for the other 2 races for fun.
If you want to cut out terran, make the map huge, but with mains lacking a lot of dead space or dark corners where terrans can drop. Zerg is fast/has creep and toss can warp in but terrans like to slow push and have to walk everywhere unless they are doing drops.
If you want to cut out toss I'd say make wide open nat/3rd that is suceptible to drops, multiprong, runbys
For zerg id say make it lots of chokes, very thin, put some rocks on the 3rd while you're at it
|
ZVP
- Protoss wants a small map with lots of choke points and close easily defended expos. They want the map to be narrow to prevent run-bys and base races. They also want to be able to wall of their natural with as few building as possible. Island expansions usually favors protoss, especially when reachable by blink.
- Zerg wants large maps, with expos far apart and open attack paths to be able to flank and run-by. They want the third to be not too far of but not to close and easily defended either. They want room around the edges of the map to sneak past mutas in and mineral lines vulnerable to muta harass.
In the lategame when zerg has a slow brood lord/corrupter/infestor composition the tables turn somewhat, and zerg wants narrower maps with cliffs and unreachable terrain to protect their broodlords in.
ZVT
- Terran wants narrow maps with short push distances where siege tanks can cover much of the map from a safe position. They generally want the expansions progression to be close together and towards the enemy, or tucked in neatly and easily defendable with a PF. They like tactical locations (like the middle of antiga shipyard) where they can control the map. Gold expansions, island expansions and rocks also favor terran.
- Zerg wants large open maps with many expos, few chokes and multiple paths of attack and flank. They like to take fringe expansions on opposite sides of the map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
