I really like the larger map pool and the maps have a lot of variety in both visuals and gameplay. The previous map pool was honestly so drab and ugly save for a couple maps. It's very refreshing having a map pool again that showcases how Starcraft 2's graphics have aged really well (at least in my opinion).
We've got plenty of maps with gold bases, some very open maps and some more chokepoint-y, we have some maps with mineral walls, speed zones, and we have Radhuset for some crazy games. I think we hit a great point in balancing out map variety and "extra" features such as walls, mineral lines, map objectives etc. Fun, but not too crazy/unbalanced.
If anything, maybe one more veto would have been nice. Either way, I think this map pool is truly awesome and will remain fresh for a long time.
I agree, the variety of maps and the maps being larger has resulted in some much more exciting games LotV strived to reach more back and forth, small skirmishes around the map, similar to BW, and largely succeeded But the maps were still holding things back.
I say this all the time but im going to keep saying it because i still havent heard why SC2 maps have been like this for so long In SC2 maps, they are designed so that you take closer bases and then move farther out Also, later bases become more open and harder to take and defend Contrast this to BW, where often times your third will be in a base in the other corner of the map, on high ground with a small ramp This increases the strategy and variety of gameplay and tactics MUCH more because now there are multiple locations where you can choose to attack, multiple reinforcement paths you can intercept, etc. With SC2 maps for the longest time and even now still, they are designed to be "my side vs your side". SC2 maps designed to have you take close bases and then ones farther out, only encourages you to ball your army up trying to defend all the bases perfectly. This results usually in the attacker basically deciding whether to attack your 3rd or 4th, and maybe mixing in a drop to the main. And the gameplay is balanced around remaining stable and not allowing the attacker to open you up for a big push that ends the game. This is so 1 dimensional and stale!
If maps are designed so that you have incentive to take farther away bases (due to things like cliffs or ramps that make it easier to defend in ways), then the gameplay becames more spread out. One way SC2 has been able to achieve this in its own way that BW hasn't, is by the use of gold bases or high gas bases. Despite it being harder to defend these farther bases, the increased income at least can compensate. Often we see dynamic, interesting, or ballsy strategies on these maps and much more interesting kinds of games. WE SHOULD BE AIMING FOR THIS MORE! Let's take some things from BW and add bases with small chokes or ramps, just like Golden Wall did with the upper middle bases, or the corner bases which are far away to defend but also hard for your opponent to reach.
Will this affect balance? Yes it can. But with the community patches, we can adjust the balance. Also, Terran tends to become weaker on very large maps because their mobility is lower than Zerg and Protoss. Adding cliffs, ramps, chokes, etc. is something that will help Terran not become disadvantaged in huge maps. For example, that corner base on Golden Wall is hard for Terran to push vs Zerg? Why not add a cliff for drops/tanks! At the same time, it allows us to have these big maps where a lot more exciting action and back and forth can happen.
So often you see games where both players have like 5-7 bases each, yet they have 1 big fight and then it's GG. Why is it GG? Don't they have 7 bases still? It's GG because all the bases are clumped or on 1 corner of the map, so it's easy for the opponent to just push into your main and choke you out. If bases are spread more across the map, this happens less. You can spread the fights, production buildings even, more around the map.
Heck even in WC2 you see this more spread out gameplay. Bases, production buildings, and action are spread across the map more.
Let me drop a few games where gameplay resulting from spread out bases has resulted in lots more action, as well as slower paced and less volatile games (because you don't lose in just 1 push, there's many ways to come back)
Parting taking a far rich base, lots of tactics and manuevers on Deathaura: Creator vs MVP with boring WoL gameplay had dynamic back and forth action thanks to Taldarim Alter (4 player spawns = there will be corner bases with chokes!): G1 Equilibrium, Khelazur and Astrea have intense and spread out action: TY Mech vs Stats, after a base trade the game almost resets to a top vs bottom layout on Golden Wall:
Sorry for the spam. I'm genuinely curious why SC2 maps have seemed to ignore so many of the common traits of BW maps that allow for the dynamic, spread out and slower action that people love about BW. It is a way to slow the game down and become less volatile, while allowing for more action at the same time and more chances for comebacks and "plays"
"Slowing the game down" doesn't seem to be the focus for any RTS, quite the opposite. A problem all RTS have that are not like Iron Harvest/Company of Heroes is that the start is slow. However slow it might be, a game of Counterstrike will see action 30 seconds in at the latest. And while LoL starts out slow with the lane, there is still lots of dynamic going on. Compare that with SC2 (or WC3 or AoE2)...at the start nothing happens. Which is bad for viewership.
Since you mentioned Warcraft (i assume you meant WC3 not WC2? xD): Back in the day, WC3 had very slow gameplay and gigantic maps. Multiple 4-player maps like TM, TR or even something as slow as Lost Temple, but also even a 6-player map with Gnoll Wood. If you check the current mappool now (which is basically a good stand-in for any mappool ever since 2009) you find...two 4-player maps with TR and TM and I would even argue that Turtle Rock is so small, it almost counts as a 2-player map.
...sorry, kinda went off-topic with Warcraft, back to SC2: Making the third base harder to reach as you suggested would be a huge problem for Zerg, wouldn't it? Could be an idea for one map, but if half the mappool is like that, that could spell trouble. The kind of trouble you can't really balance out otherwise
On December 05 2023 12:06 Balnazza wrote: "Slowing the game down" doesn't seem to be the focus for any RTS, quite the opposite. A problem all RTS have that are not like Iron Harvest/Company of Heroes is that the start is slow. However slow it might be, a game of Counterstrike will see action 30 seconds in at the latest. And while LoL starts out slow with the lane, there is still lots of dynamic going on. Compare that with SC2 (or WC3 or AoE2)...at the start nothing happens. Which is bad for viewership.
Since you mentioned Warcraft (i assume you meant WC3 not WC2? xD): Back in the day, WC3 had very slow gameplay and gigantic maps. Multiple 4-player maps like TM, TR or even something as slow as Lost Temple, but also even a 6-player map with Gnoll Wood. If you check the current mappool now (which is basically a good stand-in for any mappool ever since 2009) you find...two 4-player maps with TR and TM and I would even argue that Turtle Rock is so small, it almost counts as a 2-player map.
...sorry, kinda went off-topic with Warcraft, back to SC2: Making the third base harder to reach as you suggested would be a huge problem for Zerg, wouldn't it? Could be an idea for one map, but if half the mappool is like that, that could spell trouble. The kind of trouble you can't really balance out otherwise
I don't mean slow down the start of the game, sorry if i was unclear. When i talk about slower paced gameplay, i mean when the game doesn't end so quickly, when 1 decision doesn't lead to such a drastic change in the game. But rather you have to make many smaller decisions and many small victories to build an advantage, then close the game out. For example BW is slower paced than SC2, because in SC2 often a game is decided in 1 big fight. It's also not easy to take far bases out in lategame in SC2, because they're so open and hard to defend. Contrast this with BW, a big part of why it's easier to fortify positions and harder to attack is ofc because of things like limited unit selection and clunkier movement, but a big part is also because the far bases that you can choose to take often have features that make it easier to defend such as having chokes or ramps. It makes it less simple to dismantle a base because you can't just A move into it. For example you can put 3 lurkers at the top of a ramp, now the player trying to break in can try to counter the lurkers with some air units and detection or some marine splitting etc. Then the defender can try to counter that ahead of time, and this just goes on and on. This back and forth makes it take longer to dismantle a fortified position, and allows for more interactions on both sides. So you can have very dynamic and frequent action with a slower paced game, but any one action or interaction doesn't easily lead to a big advantage.
And yes i did mean WC2 haha !
It's common to see proxy production buildings because it allows you to produce units at those locations to harass or zone areas. It's very comparable to how Protoss can warp in HTs around the map and use them defensively later or to zone areas, interecept drops, etc. This leads to lots more varied army movement on the map, and since there are so many more objectives and places to attack or harass, the gameplay becames exponentially more dynamic and deep.
And this was actually seen in SC2 maps, such as 4 player spawn maps in WoL. Especially Taldarim Alter. When the bases become so spread out, it starts to become a strategy to spread your production buildings across different bases. That makes it easier to produce an army to attack other areas of the map. Also, it means that if the opponent attacks your "main" base, you can actually give it up without losing the game. And you can counter by taking out some of your opponent's bases and production too. In this way, "base trades" don't become much of a thing anymore. You have to really choke your opponent out, rather than just racing to see who destroys the others' buildings first.
And also my bad i was unclear about the 3rd base thing. The 3rd base itself doesn't have to be in the corner of the map. It's just that in BW maps, the far off bases are options to take early on, such as for your 3rd or 4th base. In SC2, it's very rare to have more options for your 3rd than just the triangle 3rd or the linear 3rd, and the other one becomes your 4th. If you take a base in the corner of the map it's usually a secret base that gives you an advantage only if the opponent doesn't scout it for long enough. You can't make use of defense or static defense well enough to make taking that far base worth it, because maps make far away bases be very open and easy to attack into (low ground, no chokes, etc.).
I'm just advocating for allowing more expansion options than just the standard triangle 3rd and linear 3rd. One way we currently do that is by having far bases have rich resources. Another way still rarely if ever seen is having far bases with chokes, cliffs, etc. And that is a way to achieve more spread out action consisting of smaller skirmishes, and more dynamic gameplay.
On December 05 2023 12:06 Balnazza wrote: "Slowing the game down" doesn't seem to be the focus for any RTS, quite the opposite. A problem all RTS have that are not like Iron Harvest/Company of Heroes is that the start is slow. However slow it might be, a game of Counterstrike will see action 30 seconds in at the latest. And while LoL starts out slow with the lane, there is still lots of dynamic going on. Compare that with SC2 (or WC3 or AoE2)...at the start nothing happens. Which is bad for viewership.
Since you mentioned Warcraft (i assume you meant WC3 not WC2? xD): Back in the day, WC3 had very slow gameplay and gigantic maps. Multiple 4-player maps like TM, TR or even something as slow as Lost Temple, but also even a 6-player map with Gnoll Wood. If you check the current mappool now (which is basically a good stand-in for any mappool ever since 2009) you find...two 4-player maps with TR and TM and I would even argue that Turtle Rock is so small, it almost counts as a 2-player map.
...sorry, kinda went off-topic with Warcraft, back to SC2: Making the third base harder to reach as you suggested would be a huge problem for Zerg, wouldn't it? Could be an idea for one map, but if half the mappool is like that, that could spell trouble. The kind of trouble you can't really balance out otherwise
I don't mean slow down the start of the game, sorry if i was unclear. When i talk about slower paced gameplay, i mean when the game doesn't end so quickly, when 1 decision doesn't lead to such a drastic change in the game. But rather you have to make many smaller decisions and many small victories to build an advantage, then close the game out. For example BW is slower paced than SC2, because in SC2 often a game is decided in 1 big fight. It's also not easy to take far bases out in lategame in SC2, because they're so open and hard to defend. Contrast this with BW, a big part of why it's easier to fortify positions and harder to attack is ofc because of things like limited unit selection and clunkier movement, but a big part is also because the far bases that you can choose to take often have features that make it easier to defend such as having chokes or ramps. It makes it less simple to dismantle a base because you can't just A move into it. For example you can put 3 lurkers at the top of a ramp, now the player trying to break in can try to counter the lurkers with some air units and detection or some marine splitting etc. Then the defender can try to counter that ahead of time, and this just goes on and on. This back and forth makes it take longer to dismantle a fortified position, and allows for more interactions on both sides. So you can have very dynamic and frequent action with a slower paced game, but any one action or interaction doesn't easily lead to a big advantage.
And yes i did mean WC2 haha ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhue-q543d8 It's common to see proxy production buildings because it allows you to produce units at those locations to harass or zone areas. It's very comparable to how Protoss can warp in HTs around the map and use them defensively later or to zone areas, interecept drops, etc. This leads to lots more varied army movement on the map, and since there are so many more objectives and places to attack or harass, the gameplay becames exponentially more dynamic and deep.
And this was actually seen in SC2 maps, such as 4 player spawn maps in WoL. Especially Taldarim Alter. When the bases become so spread out, it starts to become a strategy to spread your production buildings across different bases. That makes it easier to produce an army to attack other areas of the map. Also, it means that if the opponent attacks your "main" base, you can actually give it up without losing the game. And you can counter by taking out some of your opponent's bases and production too. In this way, "base trades" don't become much of a thing anymore. You have to really choke your opponent out, rather than just racing to see who destroys the others' buildings first.
And also my bad i was unclear about the 3rd base thing. The 3rd base itself doesn't have to be in the corner of the map. It's just that in BW maps, the far off bases are options to take early on, such as for your 3rd or 4th base. In SC2, it's very rare to have more options for your 3rd than just the triangle 3rd or the linear 3rd, and the other one becomes your 4th. If you take a base in the corner of the map it's usually a secret base that gives you an advantage only if the opponent doesn't scout it for long enough. You can't make use of defense or static defense well enough to make taking that far base worth it, because maps make far away bases be very open and easy to attack into (low ground, no chokes, etc.).
I'm just advocating for allowing more expansion options than just the standard triangle 3rd and linear 3rd. One way we currently do that is by having far bases have rich resources. Another way still rarely if ever seen is having far bases with chokes, cliffs, etc. And that is a way to achieve more spread out action consisting of smaller skirmishes, and more dynamic gameplay.
In general, SC2 could really benefit from having to fight for your 3rd (and further) bases. And even the naturals, every map has a ramp leading to the natural, but you could totally try a no ramp natural. And for the love of god, no maps like Radhuset where you can defend 4+ bases on a single choke point