|
On February 27 2012 06:17 Diamond wrote:People seem to have missed when I said this earlier so I will say it again. Show nested quote +To sum up this whole thread and answer it.
Players don't play maps not in tournaments.
Tournaments don't use non standard maps.
Thus there is no point to making non standard maps.
/End
Quoted because Diamond speaks the truth. I'll just add that foreign mapmakers are starting to gain more popularity (cloud kingdom + korhal compound), and with it we will definitely be trying to push the mapmaking standards. We just can't go fast because tournaments can't risk using imbalanced maps at this point.
|
On February 26 2012 06:35 ceaRshaf wrote:
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.
You can check out my map if your interested
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291291
|
Maps should not affect how you play the game itself but how you are going to play against the player and the race he plays. Maps need to be very wary on distance, cliffs, high grounds and route to opponent. All of these need to be taken account of to make a good map. There are some maps in SC2 that already have this going on, usually the GSL maps like Daybreak. In BW, the reason why game was so balanced it was not because of the patches, it was the maps. You cannot refute that Fighting Spirit was the best map ever, and that every game there was a good one. IMO, if SC2 wants to be actually balanced, Blizzard needs to make better maps.
|
I want more variety. More importantly, I want the GSL maps to be a little easier to "read" on the minimap, a-la tileset coloring.
I loved how easy bel'shir beach was to observe. but the forest version is almost impossible.
Also, I want to see island maps too from time to time, just as a "mix it up" option for a loser to choose, etc. a single wild card option would give a "loser picks" scenario so much more flavor, it'd be amazing.
That said, I don't want the game to be imbalanced by the maps. The maps are what balance the game, really. The "low mineral efficiency" scenario would basically be a terran easy win (coming from a terran player)
|
On February 27 2012 15:47 Honeybadger wrote:
I want more variety. More importantly, I want the GSL maps to be a little easier to "read" on the minimap, a-la tileset coloring.
I loved how easy bel'shir beach was to observe. but the forest version is almost impossible.
Also, I want to see island maps too from time to time, just as a "mix it up" option for a loser to choose, etc. a single wild card option would give a "loser picks" scenario so much more flavor, it'd be amazing.
That said, I don't want the game to be imbalanced by the maps. The maps are what balance the game, really. The "low mineral efficiency" scenario would basically be a terran easy win (coming from a terran player)
So you want terrans to be able to pick island maps when they lose, so that they can never get 2-0'd by zerg/protoss? Seems very fair.
|
On February 28 2012 00:33 Manical wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 15:47 Honeybadger wrote:
I want more variety. More importantly, I want the GSL maps to be a little easier to "read" on the minimap, a-la tileset coloring.
I loved how easy bel'shir beach was to observe. but the forest version is almost impossible.
Also, I want to see island maps too from time to time, just as a "mix it up" option for a loser to choose, etc. a single wild card option would give a "loser picks" scenario so much more flavor, it'd be amazing.
That said, I don't want the game to be imbalanced by the maps. The maps are what balance the game, really. The "low mineral efficiency" scenario would basically be a terran easy win (coming from a terran player) So you want terrans to be able to pick island maps when they lose, so that they can never get 2-0'd by zerg/protoss? Seems very fair.
There is actually a very simple solution:
You scatter mineral patches containing 5 minerals all over the island so that a CC can't land. Thus each race needs drop technology in order to expand. They have to ferry a worker to mine out the blocking patch before building the CC/nexus/hatch. You just have to scatter patches over the island so that a CC cannot land anywhere (which is simple as there is also the minimum distance between CC and resources.
Problem solved.
|
At the moment we might not see any new creative maps but only standard ones for better balancing but if the maps don't start to mean more to the game then viewing starcraft may get boring.
I would hate if all maps follow the same rule over and over again. There would be no meaning when a player choses a map after balancing is done. Today pros pick maps that are considered favored at the moment, but after that issue is resolved they will pick maps based on what? Tile set preferences?
|
everyone designing starcraft 2 is using speed and it's a problem
|
On February 28 2012 01:25 ceaRshaf wrote:
At the moment we might not see any new creative maps but only standard ones for better balancing but if the maps don't start to mean more to the game then viewing starcraft may get boring.
I would hate if all maps follow the same rule over and over again. There would be no meaning when a player choses a map after balancing is done. Today pros pick maps that are considered favored at the moment, but after that issue is resolved they will pick maps based on what? Tile set preferences?
Maps mean 8591205812908x more than you think they do.
|
On February 28 2012 01:27 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 01:25 ceaRshaf wrote:
At the moment we might not see any new creative maps but only standard ones for better balancing but if the maps don't start to mean more to the game then viewing starcraft may get boring.
I would hate if all maps follow the same rule over and over again. There would be no meaning when a player choses a map after balancing is done. Today pros pick maps that are considered favored at the moment, but after that issue is resolved they will pick maps based on what? Tile set preferences? Maps mean 8591205812908x more than you think they do.
Still a lot less than they should.
|
On February 27 2012 10:55 Daft Commander wrote:
Maps should not affect how you play the game itself but how you are going to play against the player and the race he plays.
Could not disagree more, BW was full of maps that had unique strats to that map, and was part of what made BW great.
|
We need more Kulas Extreme.
|
United States2209 Posts
Island maps!! Yeah!!
On February 28 2012 00:33 Manical wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 15:47 Honeybadger wrote:
I want more variety. More importantly, I want the GSL maps to be a little easier to "read" on the minimap, a-la tileset coloring.
I loved how easy bel'shir beach was to observe. but the forest version is almost impossible.
Also, I want to see island maps too from time to time, just as a "mix it up" option for a loser to choose, etc. a single wild card option would give a "loser picks" scenario so much more flavor, it'd be amazing.
That said, I don't want the game to be imbalanced by the maps. The maps are what balance the game, really. The "low mineral efficiency" scenario would basically be a terran easy win (coming from a terran player) So you want terrans to be able to pick island maps when they lose, so that they can never get 2-0'd by zerg/protoss? Seems very fair.
Visible creep tumor?
|
Unless you want novice rocks everywhere, you can't get creative with maps
Certain races benefit from specific features, and going overboard with them will make the maps useless due to extreme imbalance.
The most "creative" map I remember from 1v1 ladder was Scrap Station. I'm sure people liked that map so much.
|
What I would like to see would be more FFA, 2v2, 3v3, etc in tournaments. Just for the fun of it.
|
Creative maps imho are the ones that actually have scenery like cloud kingdom or bel shir, thats all the creativity I need in competitive play. Balance is important and theres a mode for creativity called custom! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
