|
On January 17 2025 09:08 Kraekkling wrote:
It would be a different map. IMO neutral buildings blocking paths is the most overused non-standard feature in the history of bw maps. We've had plenty (enough) of those maps.
The current concept of Death Valley is much more unique.
Well the way Arkanoid does it it the map will be open more in the lategame stage. So you are Basically playing the map the way is designed but it will open more options to the late game.
That said progamers didnt use the map either today. I wonder if they are looking to change it for something else.
|
On January 16 2025 01:31 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:They changed the eggs from Death Valley ramp to minerals. I think the most notable change from this is that now workers cant escape from the main using that ramp? And just easier in general to clean the ramp.and open access. It also prevents zerg from doing lurker rushes and using that ramp.
Siege tank the map. The map maker is trying so hard to implement the Lost Temple natural high ground tank position in the naturals. Fun that it looks like tanks can siege the natural base, but lurkers have no shot at killing workers. This is unlike Heart Break Ridge, where all races could benefit from having units behind the mineral line.
Then the random high ground pocket near the middle of the map. Looks like there's a doodad perfectly placed so a lurker or dragoon, cannot be placed there to get a free shot on low ground units, only tanks.
Both expansions have their mineral lines protected with either no space behind it, or it's in the opponents base. This will make muta harass very difficult.
Also looks like there's a ton of buildable terrain for terran to build turrets. Is anyone else feeling this is map is extremely terran favored?
|
Regardless of the map maker's efforts, Death Valley will not be used in PL.
The reason is simple: they dislike complex maps.
As long as the PL-centric system remains in place, their overall level of play will continue to decline.
Even if a player isn’t that skilled, they can just join a strong team and still win.
So, there’s no real need to improve.
Complex maps require more games to fully understand them.
But they no longer have a reason to put in the effort to improve,
which is why they avoid playing on such maps.
This map will keep getting banned in tournaments,
and even if it does get played, it will likely result in uninspired, low-quality games.\
The gamers I once admired no longer have the same passion. That’s why I don’t really like pro-gamers anymore.
I think most map makers feel the same way. They create maps simply because they love BW,
I once hoped for "the next Boxer," but instead, "the next Boxer" emerged in another game—LOL (Faker.)
|
On January 18 2025 23:57 POPsNemec wrote:
Regardless of the map maker's efforts, Death Valley will not be used in PL.
The reason is simple: they dislike complex maps.
As long as the PL-centric system remains in place, their overall level of play will continue to decline.
Even if a player isn’t that skilled, they can just join a strong team and still win.
So, there’s no real need to improve.
Complex maps require more games to fully understand them.
But they no longer have a reason to put in the effort to improve,
which is why they avoid playing on such maps.
This map will keep getting banned in tournaments,
and even if it does get played, it will likely result in uninspired, low-quality games.\
The gamers I once admired no longer have the same passion. That’s why I don’t really like pro-gamers anymore.
I think most map makers feel the same way. They create maps simply because they love BW,
I once hoped for "the next Boxer," but instead, "the next Boxer" emerged in another game—LOL (Faker.)
I hope you guys keep making maps. But at the same time as a player Maps like Third World. Sparkle Death Valley are just a mess to play with the BW mechanic liminations and units AI . I feel like there is a lot of room left to do innovations with maps but doesnt need to go extreme. For example take 76 Map. It is the most revolutionary map i have seen in years. But at the same time going to the extreme of using that tiny ramp to your main is just a overkill. Perhaps the minerals mechanics and the expansion mechanics in that map could be used in a different way and still make the map fun to play. There is a lot of room to create a fun map with highground . The new remastered ramps etc and create something unique. Proof of that is Sylphid. Escalade . Overwatch.(foreigner map ) Apocalypse. Vermeer .
In order to create a fun gimmick map like you call it. It is that the units and the fight interactions and all of that is fun to play. Starcraft is already really hard to control. So fighting the map is not something a player is willing to do in this era.
IDK but i wonder if those progamers will enjoy Death Valley more if you tried my proposition of using Arkanoid mechanic to open it in the late game.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 18 2025 23:57 POPsNemec wrote:
Regardless of the map maker's efforts, Death Valley will not be used in PL.
The reason is simple: they dislike complex maps.
As long as the PL-centric system remains in place, their overall level of play will continue to decline.
Even if a player isn’t that skilled, they can just join a strong team and still win.
So, there’s no real need to improve.
Complex maps require more games to fully understand them.
But they no longer have a reason to put in the effort to improve,
which is why they avoid playing on such maps.
This map will keep getting banned in tournaments,
and even if it does get played, it will likely result in uninspired, low-quality games.\
The gamers I once admired no longer have the same passion. That’s why I don’t really like pro-gamers anymore.
I think most map makers feel the same way. They create maps simply because they love BW,
I once hoped for "the next Boxer," but instead, "the next Boxer" emerged in another game—LOL (Faker.)
map makers create maps cus they love BW, BW pros/casuals play the game cus they love it too, why don't map makers work within the parameters of what the majority of ppl who play this game enjoy playing on? i feel like this complex map issue gets talked about every season
every season all i see is super weird maps, there hasn't been a new iconic map in a very long time (Poly and Sylphid are the last ones, maybe Vermeer too), a weird map is fine but it should be like 1 map out of the entirety of the map pool but in SSL it's like 5/7 of the maps every season..
it's fine to make unique maps but a unique map should be made within a standard layout, for example Polypoid with highground 3rd and expo layouts was a standard map with a unique layout that made the map stand out/fun to play on, or Sylphid because it's very hard to balance 3p maps but the layout/putting a lot of well positioned neutral expos made the map fun to play on
if you look at the entire history of BW there's maybe only 1 good 3p map, Sylphid, shouldn't this motivate map makers to make another Sylphid or something? i dunno i feel like ppl always try to re-invent the wheel instead of keeping things simple
|
51301 Posts
i'd argue at the time that tau cross was another 3p map that was generally well liked by the community
|
It’s a shame that Death Valley didn’t make it; I think it had potential. I think this season was overall good in terms of map design. Death Valley was really the only non-standard map. On the other hand, it’s understandable why pro gamers don't want to adapt to a single map that requires re-learning the game, especially when it’s likely to be rotated out after just one season.
When it comes to making maps unique and creative, there are two things I’d like to see in the future:
1)Placement of non-standard elements
If creative, non-standard elements like neutral buildings blocking paths, eggs or minerals blocking routes, assimilator entrances, hoppable islands or semi-island expansions, static spells, etc, etc, are introduced, they should not be used in the main base or natural expansions, or anywhere that impacts the early game. + Show Spoiler +Arguably, not at the third base either...
It’s fine to have these elements elsewhere on the map to add spiciness, but applying them to starting locations changes too much of the game and often leads to frustration for players. A little gimmick here and there can make a map more exciting, but the entire design shouldn’t revolve solely around that gimmick.
2)Reduce the number of 4-player maps
The design space for 4-player maps in todays meta is quite constrained. Eight expansions are already "locked in" due to the layout, and the single advantage of 4-player maps, i.e. spawn variance and the occasional cross-spawn, IMO doesn’t outweigh the limitations.
In contrast 2-player (or 3-player) maps allow for much greater design flexibility. Think of recent 2-player maps like Invader, Blitz-Y, Butter, or even Eclipse. Each of these maps feels distinct and fresh compared to the more rigid design of 4-player maps.
|
To. [sc1f]eonzerg
You made a great point. It is crucial to design gimmick maps that do not create an unpleasant experience for players.
However, I believe that the maps you mentioned lean more towards casual maps. Just by looking at their layouts, it is quite predictable how the game will play out.
"How will the game unfold?"
This element of curiosity is, in my opinion, the most important aspect when designing a gimmick map.
That is why I consider Gold Rush, Block Chain, and Nemesis to be successful gimmick maps.
Of course, there have been many failed maps. However, if a map, once used in a tournament, produces even a single memorable match due to its unique features, I believe it has fulfilled its purpose. On the other hand, if no such game emerges, then it is a failed gimmick map.
(Personally, I think Third World failed in terms of balance, but it still produced some entertaining games. The ASL5 3rd-4th place match (Mini vs. HerO) is one that I still remember.)
Regarding the improvements you suggested, they have already been discussed by many viewers, players, and gamers. However, I do not believe that Earthattack, the map creator, intends to implement those changes. His goal is to create battles in the 1 o’clock area in the early game and in the 7 o’clock area in the late game. He wants to see a split-map scenario with island-style engagements, as traditional island maps tend to have dull early-game phases. You can think of it as an extended version of the Troy concept.
To. TT1 & GTR
I believe there is some misunderstanding. I have also been creating major and casual maps consistently. However, since the tournament organizers have not selected them, they were never publicly revealed.
Tournament organizers aim for a diverse map pool, which is why even less popular map types are frequently included.
When SOOP (AfreecaTV) selects maps, their focus is not only on the players but also on the viewers. Since they are a broadcasting company, they need to consider what would make an interesting spectator experience as well.
While many players see maps as balance patches, SOOP perceives them as a script for the tournament.
I believe ladder maps, which are meant to be fair and competitive, should be selected by Blizzard, not SOOP(AfreecaTV). Following ASL’s map pool is not a necessity, and in my opinion, taking an independent approach would be better. Of course, opinions on this may vary.
I would love to see more map selection flexibility with additional ban options. That way, players who want to play ASL maps can choose them, while those who prefer casual maps can opt for those instead.
Creating an iconic map while breaking away from the traditional framework is an extremely challenging task.
There have been many attempts:
Allegro, Vermeer, Retro, Raedon, Citadel, Pantheon, Deja Vu, and even Pole Star from this season.
As you mentioned, there have been seasons where the map pool contained too many non-standard maps. I also agree that having only one gimmick map per season is the ideal approach. Looking back, the SSL1 map pool was probably too ambitious.
However, take a look at this season's map pool (SSL2).
I believe it meets the conditions you mentioned quite well.
Except for 'Death Valley,' I consider all the other maps to be sufficiently standard.
Eclipse, Dominator, Deja Vu, Radeon, Pole Star, and Metropolis (initially somewhat inconvenient, but significantly improved)
This is one of the most standard map pools in recent times, in my opinion.
With this level of balance, I don’t think it should be a burden for pro gamers competing in tournaments.
Yet, despite these conditions, they are still rejecting the maps.
In a game like StarCraft, the focus should not only be on the players but also on the viewers.
Everything cannot be tailored to fit only the gamers' preferences. However, they refuse to compromise in any way.
|
[Challenges of Designing a 3-Player Map]
3-player maps are one of the most difficult map types to design in Brood War.
Ensuring symmetry is very tricky.
Air unit pathing must also be carefully considered.
If the starting positions are even slightly off, like in Dominator, it can cause issues with building placement in the main base.
With limited map size and all these constraints, creating a unique, iconic map becomes even harder. However, I am still making efforts in this area.
Tau Cross is a great map. I recently analyzed it and found that, despite its slightly asymmetric layout, it had a golden balance during the Kespa era. It’s fascinating.
(Although, after the Remastered version, it has been evaluated as favoring Zerg more.)
To. Kraekkling
'Death Valley' will still be used in SSL. It just won’t be included in PL.
I think you have a valid point. Adapting to a map that will only be used for a few months can feel frustrating.
However, as I mentioned to eonzerg, a map needs to evoke the question:
"How will the game unfold?"
If the outcome is too predictable, it becomes boring, which is why such maps usually do not last beyond two seasons.
Your statement that "excessive gimmicks are just greed" is absolutely right.
For example, after 'Waldstein' created 'Anonymous,' even among map designers, there were discussions about whether the design was too extreme. Adjustments were made, but unfortunately, the map was never publicly released to players.
I also expressed concerns about blocking pathways with minerals in 'Minstrel', but my concerns were not reflected in the final design. This is because I was not the one who created the map.
[Thoughts on the Map Pool]
Regarding the map pool, typically:
1. Protoss favors 2-player maps the most.
2. Zerg&Terran dislikes 2-player maps because Probes can harass more effectively, and expansion options are limited.
3. 3-player maps are difficult to include frequently because ZvZ (Zerg vs. Zerg) matchups become too dependent on spawn luck.
Due to these factors, I believe the current map pool format will likely remain unchanged.
(In contrast, in SC2, 2-player maps are the standard.)
Both the tournament organizers(SOOP) and map makers are not fundamentally different from what you think.
We are all people who have been with Broodwar for at least over 20 years.
What I want to emphasize is that if a non-cooperative attitude persists, it will inevitably lead to low-quality maps, whether they are casual maps or gimmick maps.
Unlike in the past, players no longer actively test new maps in Spon-games. Instead, most of them experience these maps for the first time in PL. And when balance issues arise, the map maker is always the one who gets blamed. This has always been the case.
Expressing these feelings may make other players uncomfortable, and I might regret it later. However, I hope that by honestly expressing my thoughts, we can clear up misunderstandings.
|
Nemec, thanks for your replies.
1. Protoss favors 2-player maps the most.
This is not supported by stats. If we don't count maps which are obviously broken for different reasons other than being 2-player maps, such as HBR and Minstrel, there is no advantage for Protoss.
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/bz9wpkD/2pmaps.png)
+ Show Spoiler +Even if we kept the most imbalanced 2-player maps which are in favour of Protoss, and only kept making 2-players maps, the advantage for Protoss would still be less than the overall advantage Terran has on the four maps that were played the most. ![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/dp32jYL/Screenshot-from-2025-01-19-13-58-31.png)
|
Apocalypse was an amazing 3 player map. Invader was a standard 2 player map but because of its layout produced a lot of unique games. Minstrel would have been awesome if it wasn't for how the mineral patches and small opening created massive pathing problem. If minstrel hadn't used eggs to create super narrow paths to move through but instead larger structures to create broader spaces it would have been fine. Or if the third base option had a protected backside.
|
On January 19 2025 14:30 POPsNemec wrote:
To. [sc1f]eonzerg
You made a great point. It is crucial to design gimmick maps that do not create an unpleasant experience for players.
However, I believe that the maps you mentioned lean more towards casual maps. Just by looking at their layouts, it is quite predictable how the game will play out.
"How will the game unfold?"
This element of curiosity is, in my opinion, the most important aspect when designing a gimmick map.
That is why I consider Gold Rush, Block Chain, and Nemesis to be successful gimmick maps.
Of course, there have been many failed maps. However, if a map, once used in a tournament, produces even a single memorable match due to its unique features, I believe it has fulfilled its purpose. On the other hand, if no such game emerges, then it is a failed gimmick map.
(Personally, I think Third World failed in terms of balance, but it still produced some entertaining games. The ASL5 3rd-4th place match (Mini vs. HerO) is one that I still remember.)
Regarding the improvements you suggested, they have already been discussed by many viewers, players, and gamers. However, I do not believe that Earthattack, the map creator, intends to implement those changes. His goal is to create battles in the 1 o’clock area in the early game and in the 7 o’clock area in the late game. He wants to see a split-map scenario with island-style engagements, as traditional island maps tend to have dull early-game phases. You can think of it as an extended version of the Troy concept.
My point is that with the new remastered resources is possible to do some innovation still without going to extremes.
What you mention about the Mapmaker wanting the map to played early in a way and late in another is very possible to do in different ways without the need to just cut the map in half and making the BW engine and the units go crazy. It only creates frustration.
Take dominator as an example. Bottom Main and top main bases are so chaotic and your units get to get stuck in the minerals. And building placement is also a challenge there. Is like we learn nothing from maps like Sylphid for example.
If map makers prioritize this kind of details im pretty sure more people will be willing to try their maps. And i think foreigner mapmapers does a good job in that aspect but since they cant communicate well with koreans their maps are never picked.
When you are making a Gimmick map i could very well use 76 mechanics. Or Fortress mechanics etc but without going to extremes. And specially not making unit movement worse or impossible.
Is funny that u mention faker being the next Boxer when he is playing a game where the map is the same for his entire life with minor changes from time to time.
Take as example Tempest. That is one of the most fun maps i have played to date. Very original and it only lasted one season. Why map makers didnt try to keep building on that and fix his problems instead of just getting that design lose in dust.
Anyway i think the biggest problem with progamers / mapmakers is communication. Maybe i dont understand korean culture enough but it sounds to me that both parties dont want to concede and make a good final product.
|
On January 19 2025 22:10 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:
Apocalypse was an amazing 3 player map. Invader was a standard 2 player map but because of its layout produced a lot of unique games. Minstrel would have been awesome if it wasn't for how the mineral patches and small opening created massive pathing problem. If minstrel hadn't used eggs to create super narrow paths to move through but instead larger structures to create broader spaces it would have been fine. Or if the third base option had a protected backside.
Yea Apocalypse was probably my fav 3player map of the modern era. Lots of fantastic games on it.
|
To. Kraekkling
I am aware that there are exceptions.
For example, Neo Dark Origin was an exception where Zerg was the strongest race, while Protoss struggled the most on a 2-player map.
Sometimes, PL statistics differ from Eloboard statistics.
(In the Korean community, PL match records are sometimes tracked separately.)
For example, Invader was not actually well-received in Korea in terms of balance.
SoulKey, in particular, strongly disliked playing against Protoss on this map.
After ASL, there haven’t been many 2-player maps that were both well-balanced and widely used.
This is because designing a high-quality 2-player map is incredibly difficult.
Even past maps like Blue Storm, Match Point, and Benzene,
which were widely played, started having consistent balance issues among Korean gamers after 2010.
This is also why Eclipse was chosen over Match Point for SSL2.
To. RJBTVYOUTUBE
I believe that the future of 2-player maps will likely be dominated by diagonal symmetry maps such as:
Third World, Eclipse, Invader, Death Valley
The advantage of diagonal symmetry is that it naturally encourages a dynamic engagement flow between both players.
This is what made Eclipse stand out as a well-made map.
Even LatiAs, the map maker, considers Eclipse to be his favorite map.
Apocalypse was removed from consideration because Terran players disliked it.
I personally think LatiAs is excellent at designing 3-player maps
(Sylphid, Apocalypse, Dominator).
When I have balance concerns while designing a map,
I often seek his advice as he has a great understanding of map balance.
Regarding Minstrel
I actually suggested the same idea you mentioned, but it was not implemented.
As you said, eggs are too small and have too much HP.
Even if the minerals are removed, the pathfinding algorithm still causes movement issues.
Overall, it felt like a concept that just didn’t work well with BW mechanics.
StarCraft 1 ↔ StarCraft 2 Map Conversion Issues
I believe that converting maps between SC1 and SC2 requires extensive modifications.
These two games have completely different mechanics and design philosophies.
If you try to keep the original layout too similar,
it often results in unintended issues, where the gameplay does not unfold as expected.
|
To. [sc1f]eonzerg
I agree with you. That’s why I think KICK BACK is a good gimmick map.
It is simple yet effective, making it enjoyable. It’s unfortunate that it will only be used for one season.
[Issues with Dominator]
Interestingly, Sylphid, Apocalypse, and Dominator were all created by the same person: LatiAs.
For Dominator, LatiAs manually adjusted the mineral placement pixel by pixel to ensure efficiency across different bases.
However, players complained about the mineral placement being inconvenient and requested a more familiar layout.
As a result, the current mineral setup was implemented—even though it feels slightly inconvenient, it was chosen because players preferred familiarity.
Since Dominator’s starting position layout ended up being flawed, future 3-player maps will likely stick to the Sylphid/Apocalypse style of main base design.
[Foreign Map Makers I Know]
During the KSL era, I remember Freakling creating great maps.
I’m not sure if he’s still active, but he was a very skilled map designer.
Among his maps, Eddy stood out as one I particularly liked.
I also recall seeing Freakling on BWMN (Broodwar map community)
and even asking him some questions about my own research.
Another skilled foreign map maker I know is Testbug. He has worked on BSL map design before.
I’ve known Testbug for 17 years, and he has always been a fan of my maps.
Since I know how talented he is, I think his maps might eventually be featured in SSL someday.
We occasionally chat on Messenger, and I always enjoy talking with him.
[BoxeR vs. Faker Comparison]
While it may seem like League of Legends is played on the same map,
I disagree with the notion that it has minimal changes.
In reality, LoL undergoes significant changes over time:
Champions are constantly rebalanced, New champions are introduced, regularly Items are modified, Map objectives are changed, Team compositions evolve
It’s a fundamental difference between a game where only the map changes and a game where everything except the map changes.
There are times when Faker had to deal with disadvantageous conditions, but he has managed to overcome them for over a decade.
That is why I consider Faker to be the next BoxeR.
[Tempest]
I also really liked Tempest.
Its design was excellent, and there were no major balance issues.
The decision-making around the third expansion was also fascinating.
I believe that Tempest will eventually return to tournaments someday.
It’s unfortunate that it was only used for one season.
The reason why Tempest only lasted one season is the same reason why Death Valley was boycotted—players found it too complex and refused to play on it. I believe this kind of attitude is problematic.
The map’s creator, 4chernar, is still active today. I first saw his work 17 years ago, and even now, I consider him to be a very skilled map maker. He is still active in the Korean community and continues to create great maps.
[Communication Barriers & Why Foreign Map Makers Struggle to Enter the Scene]
In reality, map makers only submit their maps,
but the final selection for SSL maps is made by the broadcasting company.
Even I do not know which maps have been selected until they are uploaded to the 910map blog.
There is no direct communication between map makers and gamers. The only way to leave feedback is through 910’s forum, or by contacting 910 directly. Essentially, all communication flows through 910.
Outside of special events like Radeon or Vermeer, there is almost no direct interaction between players and map makers.
[How Map Makers Gather Feedback]
You might be wondering how map makers have been adjusting maps all this time.
The typical process is that map makers watch hundreds of player streams to gather feedback from their comments.
This is likely one of the reasons why foreign map makers struggle to enter the scene.
It is difficult to watch Korean-language streams, waiting for random moments when streamers briefly discuss the map.
Similarly, Korean map makers also faced difficulties when KSL was active, as they could not introduce their maps outside of pre-selected ASL maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FuZ1XPK.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/s4kS8lm.png)
