|
The Spectator Factor
Imbalances that make balance.
------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: Many hours of thought and effort went into this, but in case there is any confusion... "Never listen to what I said. Listen to what I meant, damnit!" - Day[9] ------------------------------------------------------------------
[epeen](It's relevant): In the beta before there was diamond, I was platinum 1v1 and 2v2. When diamond, 3v3 and 4v4 came out, it didn't take too long before I was diamond 1v1 2v2 3v3 and 4v4. When the game was finally released, it took me less than a week to make diamond 1v1 2v2 3v3 and 4v4 again. I have actually become very rusty because I haven't played many games at all in the past two months (I was 1000 diamond before two months ago, but I did go 10-2 against mostly 1700+ people a few weeks ago and got to 1200 which is what I'm at now). [/epeen]
What I have been doing instead of playing is studying StarCraft 2 strategy (for the purpose of becoming a better mapmaker) by watching a large amount of high level games and meticulously analyzing what can happen. I want to state for the record here that I believe even a silver level (sorry bronze ) player can make the best of maps. Knowing how to play the game is not what's important in mapmaking. What is important is knowing how the game is played.
------------------------------------------------------------------
StarCraft isn't just a game. StarCraft is a sport - more specifically: an e-sport. As with any good sport, what truly keeps it alive is the community: the people that watch the high level games and go "wow" and are even willing to pay money to see more. Of course we can't forget about the high level players, but when it comes down to it, spectators are what made SC:BW great and spectators are what will make SC2 great. It is our job as mapmakers to appease the spectators with map features that promote the use of strategies/tactics that are enjoyable to watch.
Blizzard gets a bad rap for a lot of their maps for being imbalanced in favor of certain races. I definitely can't say I disagree with this, but what I've come to realize is that they really do seem to understand the value of making maps fun to watch, and you might too by the time you're finished reading this. Does this mean that making spectator-friendly and "imbalanced" map features always makes for imbalanced maps? Absolutely not.
Many times I have read threads (and "conversations" in many stream chats) of people (usually old BW players) complaining that SC2 is boring to play and/or boring to watch. Now I've been playing SC:BW on and off (mostly off) since before 2000, and I can't say I completely believed it at first. I tried my best to explain why SC2 could be at least as interesting as SC:BW, but even I never felt like what I was saying was very convincing. It took me a long time to figure out why. The one thing that always comes up is that the biggest problem is the map pool. I cannot argue with this.
It comes down to something very fundamental. There are a variety of extremely "imbalanced" and extremely skill-based abilities in SC:BW (Dark Swarm, Ensnare, Plague, Irradiate, Defensive Matrix, Recall, Stasis, etc). To say that SC2 is completely lacking in abilities like these is utterly wrong. However, it's important to understand that not only are these spells significantly stronger in BW, but they also took more micro to use to their fullest extent AND to micro against properly. I've never seen anyone argue against this. But wait a second... doesn't imbalanced things make for an imbalanced game? NO. Absolutely not! What made SC:BW so incredibly balanced was a truly incredible distribution of these abilities (and the way they interacted with everything) for all three unique races. It really is quite a beautiful thing to watch in the hands of the masters. + Show Spoiler +For good contrast, go play a few games of WarCraft2 (Hint: orcs and humans (the only two races) basically have the same units with the same stats, the only difference being the way the units look).
Obviously making up our own spells/abilities to make a new game is out of the question (kind-of ). But that doesn't mean we can't make a balanced map filled with "imbalanced" terrain features. And that's really why I'm writing this. A vast majority of the custom maps I see are, to be blunt, rather bland in terms of spectator value, even if they are incredibly balanced. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with this. We need(ed) to take it slow so that we actually understand what's going on. A while before writing this article I had considered writing about how maybe we should go about doing experiments very slowly. When maps are filled with experiments, it's hard to know which things truly are too strong and which ones aren't. StarCraft may be in space, but it isn't in a vacuum; you have to understand how things work in the context of other things.
Blizzard has a number of "imbalances" in their ladder maps that give us good examples of things that have high spectator value and increase the level of skill required to play properly on a particular map. I think it's time that we start recognizing this and utilizing many of these "imbalances" in our own maps to make them more interesting. Don't get me wrong, you can see a lot of these things in many community maps out there. But I think we can do even better. I think we can use many "imbalances" in our maps ON PURPOSE and WITH PURPOSE to create the same kind of beautiful ballets of "imbalances" that we saw in SC:BW.
(Wow... I was planning on fitting all previous thoughts into just an introduction... Epic fail?)
Anyways, here are some prime examples of what I mean by map features with high "spectator value" that come from Blizzard maps that we all know.
Note: Some of these maps are no longer in the map pool, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 1: Thor/Tank Drops on Lost Temple.
+ Show Spoiler +
We've all seen this one before. I dare say most of us have even been in this situation ourselves, and I can tell you from experience that it's pretty scary when you're the zerg. I can also tell you from experience that it's sweet as shit to see very good players play it out. As imbalanced as it is, it has HIGH SPECTATOR VALUE. Once the zerg player gets over this bump, the map actually becomes rather good for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 2: The ledge behind your mineral line on Lost Temple.
+ Show Spoiler +
A lot of people seem to forget about this one. This ledge on Lost Temple lets air units fly over it without being seen unless the opponent has vision of it. There are two main ways this is used.
- To sneak in ground units with medivacs, and to a lesser extent with warp prisms and and even lesser extent overlords (I think hydra drops are going to become more common as the game progresses ).
- To sneak away air harassing units (banshees, void rays, even small numbers of mutalisks), in emergencies before they die.
It is very fun from a spectator standpoint to see whether or not the air units will make it into the base undetected or just barely skim away with it's life. I'm surprised this isn't more common in maps. It is a very good one IMO, and nothing says it has to be in the main. (BTW it is unpathable by ground units).
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 3: Mains that protrude into the main playing field.
+ Show Spoiler +
This isn't exactly an imbalance... but it does have high spectator value when this happens There are definitely other maps where this happens... Most notably Metalopolis. It is what it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 4: Line of Sight blockers in well-traveled areas.
+ Show Spoiler +
Yeah this one speaks for itself. This was more important before people started experiencing the now-obvious danger, but it's still good to have around; It's very fun to watch when things like this actually work.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 5: High ground above your natural on Scrap Station.
+ Show Spoiler +
The important thing to note here is that stalkers and sentries really take advantage of the small surface areas. So scary for the zerg. Very powerful. Very fun to see if the zerg can hold it off.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 6: Scrap Station's "nearer, shorter and tighter path".
+ Show Spoiler +
This thing can get pretty scary for all the races. It can become a very excellent slow push path. If you can pull a Fruitdealer it can also become an excellent trap.
+ Show Spoiler + I don't know about the rest of you but when I saw Fruitdealer pull this off, I was like "FUCK YEAH!!!".
(not an actual picture of the fruitdealer game)
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 7:
Desert Oasis' nuke/tank pwnage.
+ Show Spoiler +
This area is relatively easy to get to for the terran player, and it takes a decent amount of time for the defending player to get to once they know it's there. It's fun to see if the defending player can get there in time. This area can actually be used in other ways... Blink Stalkers and Colossus with range comes to mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 8: Blistering Sand's back door rocks.
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +Oh yeah sorry 'bout that... let's just pretend there's a spawning pool and a roach warren in that picture. Too lazy to fix
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So many people hate this imba imba imba w/e. That doesn't change the fact that it's very cool when the defending player can get themselves out of this situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 9: Kulas Ravine's natural cliff.
+ Show Spoiler +
Okay this is similar to Example 1 with Lost Temple's natural cliff. The difference here is that there's rocks blocking the path on the way up there. Will the zerg kill the rocks in time before taking too much damage? Or do they already have it broken down so the offending player get's pwned in the face? Either way, fun to watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 10: Steppes of War's close rush distances.
+ Show Spoiler +
Makes for sweet tank/bunker pushes. Either way this battle goes it's pretty cool to watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 11: Cliffs for reapers/collosus/blink stalkers (or just gaps for blink stalkers).
[no picture because almost every good map has this]
Pretty straightforward. Cliffs for reapers/collosus/blink stalkers to use for both offense and retreat (and even chasing things down tbh) are very fun and interesting. The fact that zerg can't take advantage of cliffs like this is something key to consider in all maps.
On a side note: I personally think reapers are a great unit to do drops with. I know, I know, you don't really see peopling doing it *cough*yet*cough*. But that doesn't mean it's bad. Reapers do more damage to drones than marines, do more damage to buildings than marauders, move very quickly, AND can escape far easier than marines/marauders if the medivac happens to die. Cliffs can help reapers escape. Totally worth the extra cost. My point is to always try to think beyond the metagame if you can.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there's other things in blizzard's maps. A lot of them are just variations of these original features. Vary. That's a good word. You should vary these features to your liking. You might come up with some big things just by varying these features.
Speaking of which, that's enough of Blizzard's features. We understand them. We'll use them. But let's widen our repertoire by sharing with each other things we came up with ourselves. Remember, this thread is to present map features with HIGH SPECTATOR VALUE and to discuss who we think these features favor the most.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll go first!
((( EDIT: Actually this type of thing is kind-of seen in some of blizzard's sc2 maps. For future reference I will label this "EXAMPLE 12" )))
I actually came up with this by thinking about SC:BW maps. In fact, I have not seen this in any SC2 ladder maps at all (correct me if I'm wrong). I've seen at least 1 SC:BW map where the whole map was covered with this. They're really just walls that are a thin line of terrain, usually covering up bases.
+ Show Spoiler +
Eventually I thought "hey, why not just invert it?" Besides preventing melee units and creating a small barrier for ranged units, what the above picture does is just stop LoS. Nothing wrong with walls that you can see over if you do it right.
+ Show Spoiler +
Alright, while that's a little cool it's not really my idea of "spectator value". Good spectator value usually gives good room for micro. Why not put these walls in the middle of an open area to restrict unit flow a little bit? Better yet, why not put multiple holes in the wall to let only certain types or only a certain amount of units flow through?
+ Show Spoiler +
These are just examples to show what I mean, but you can really make all kinds of formations with this, and I'm pretty sure that the way units can manipulate this terrain can be rather cool to watch if good micro is involved.
- Think foxer marine micro with these to aid you to funnel zerglings.
- Think how zerglings could even trap the marines.
- Think force fields.
- Think how anything could be funneled, and how some units can't even walk through them.
- Think how things could even split themselves up.
One thing to note is that you can allow or restrict collosus/reaper use on this terrain depending on how you use it (different levels of terrain or just using the pathing tool).
As for balance, I'd have to give 45% to protoss, 35% to terran, and 20% to zerg.
I guess this is a good place to say that I have a map design I just made that I am very fond of that both seems very close balanced to me and uses most of the features you see here. I will be posting it up soon enough, and I'll link to it from here when I do: [not yet posted]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's your turn.
- Can you think of any terrain features that would be fun to watch players utilize to their fullest, things that take skill to use to your advantage and/or that take skill to prevent such situations?
- Which race do you think it favors and why?
I have two tips that might help you:
- Zerg definitely benefit the least from most types of strange terrain. They hate walls. They hate chokes. They like open. They like lots of bases. The only type of terrain (other than a distinct lack of walls) that seems to help zerg more than anyone else is if you can get things to be trapped (think Scrap Station example 6) and bust em up with some banelings. Disclaimer: walls and chokes actually have the potential to help zerg btw, they just usually hurt them more than help them.
- Any cool interesting type of terrain is fair ground! Honestly... just anything... It doesn't matter if it seems to hurt zerg too much. That's what making an area of your map with plenty of open space and lots of bases is for. All that matters is that it's fun to watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Final words: StarCraft 2 is an e-sport. You can have an extremely balanced map, but if nobody enjoys watching your map, chances are the players wont want to play it for very long.
Disclaimer: I <3 you all!!! Especially the iCCup mapmaking team & iCCup TV, you guys are the shit :D I just see a new level of mapmaking on the horizon, and I hope everyone agrees. I also have a tremendous amount of confidence that we can get there before Blizzard ^_^ *GROUP HUG* :X
Thanks for reading. - Barrin
+ Show Spoiler [RELATED THREADS] +
|
updated 11/24/10
EXAMPLE 13: Small cramped areas behind mineral lines can be interesting when you see something like a marine/marauder ball (or even a stalker ball) owning a shitload of zerglings or even workers. On the other hand it's interesting to see if the defending player can kill those units before they get there. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 14: NYDUS WORMS!!! Making places for nydus worms in important areas (generally in/near mains) are very fun to watch. I mean seriously... they're frikkin nydus worms. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 15: (Related to 11) Small terrain gaps where stalkers can skip from one place to another. This is best when using the gap shortens walking distance to important areas significantly. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 16: (Related to 17,18,19) Short Air Positions! Ya!! Promoting the use of non tier1 units is always good from a spectator standpoint. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 17: (Related to 16,18,19) Pay close attention to the potential of ground units to "catch" air harassing units leaving (and entering) your base. This is kinda like the #1 thing that gets hyped the most in a lot of casts... + Show Spoiler +you know... when the caster's practically having an orgasm going "oh... ooh... OH... OOOHHH!!! HE GOT IT!" ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 18: (Related to 16,17,19) Pay close attention to mineral line positioning for air unit harass. If the bases are placed in such a way that allows air units to move from one mineral line to another it equals to more potential damage for the air unit. Damage is good. Also pay attention to the paths ground units have to take to move to the same areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 19: (Related to 16,17,18,22) Multiple cliff level transitions next to each other can make air units (especially carriers and brood lords) rather strong when ground forces have to move much longer paths to move to the same areas. It's a real skill factor to see if the air units can be controlled properly or if the ground units can catch them in time. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 20: (Related to 4) LoS Blockers!!! These can be used in so many different ways.
- They can be a very defensive thing... think right outside the natural on Steppes of War. Crossing into those can be fairly scary.
- They can single-handedly create surprise attack areas. Note that this actually works better when it's not in too good of a place in which case it's not overused which leads to it being unexpected.
- I personally think "forests" of LoS blockers have potential but I'll leave that one up to you guys.
I also think that LoS Blockers have some unlocked potential that nobody has really thought of yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 21: (Related to 22) Large ramp transitions (either up or down) in or near well-traversed areas definitely have their strategical value, but they also sort of "feel" dangerous. Danger is a good thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 22: (Related to 19,21) Narrow and well-traversed paths right next to high ground are just plain dangerous. Again, danger is a good thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 23: (Related to 24,25) When a certain base you control is fairly close to enemy positions, it promotes battles. Battles are a good thing. credit for highlighting: BoomStevo ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 24: (Related to 23,25) Expansions that require you to pull your army away from an ideal position necessary to defend other bases (like your main) promotes engagements + Show Spoiler +we like marriages here in starcraft... tee hee... ok that was bad -.- :D . (I think I summed that up fairly nicely, but I feel like I should say more and I don't know what... it's rather fundamentally simple like example 23). credit for highlighting: BoomStevo ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 25: (Related to 23,24) Pay close attention to how easy it is for small hellion/zergling groups to do attacks into mineral lines when armies are positioned ideally. Dying workers is a good thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE 26: (I like to think that I came up with this but something tells me that I really didn't, even though I can't really pin down the source)
Easily defended forward positions. Basically, anything that helps out a contain, but the best example I can come up with is when there is a cliff protruding into the path right outside of your natural. (It doesn't have to be outside of a natural though.)
It is easy to make this too overpowered though... just make sure there is a ground path to the high ground. If no ground path, make sure the high ground isn't too big and/or that a watch tower covers it. ------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT TO TAKE AWAY FROM ALL OF THIS:
Something I should have made more clear in the OP but (rather surprisingly) didn't "fully" understand until now is that exploitable (wink@IntoTheRain) features are always a good thing, BUT only if you can balance them out with features that tend to help the other player. That's actually extremely vague, but it has to be because I believe that nobody actually fully understands it. I sincerely doubt that anyone ever will, which personally gives me confidence to just go nuts in my own maps and do what I think counterbalances it.
While all of these exploitable features have 'high spectator value', never forget that there are plenty of spectators that also enjoy watching pure strategy. Never intentionally sacrifice strategical potential for spectator value.
|
You wrote about Blistering Sands with the name Scrap Station.
Interesting thread, will edit in a while when i get some time
|
I too have actually thought about this and almost wrote an article explaining my philosophy on the same topic. I agree wholeheartedly on your premise, that in order for SC2 to become a great e-sport it has to appease the spectators. The pros might love a map but if it's boring to watch then it won't help the cause. There are more spectators than pros.
But I also think it needs to be a compromise. You can't have a map with features that the pros will not play. If they hate your map, then it won't get played. No matter how exciting it makes it for the spectator. You have to make sure your maps are exciting for the spectator and exciting for the player at the same time.
A lot of the features you pointed our are problematic, in my opinion. I think they do as you describe but, on the Blizzard maps, are used poorly. They can be used to create excitement for the spectator but they are placed on mains and naturals. For example, you mentioned cliffs above naturals, cliffs above the main, and back door rocks. These are all nice examples, yet they attack the player early on. I like them but I don't think they should be used on mains and naturals.
I feel like mains and naturals should feel safe (notice I say "feel"). The reason for this is because if your main and natural feels safe, then you're more likely to attack. Battles are exciting. Also, I don't want a player to lose after 5 minutes. I don't want the game to go on forever, but if a game is a highly anticipated match then I don't want someone to lose early on from a cliff drop. I want to see an amazing game that lasts upwards of 30 mins packed with action the whole way through.
To me, the best way to make a map that I'd like to watch is to create risky yet rewarding expansions or an expansion pattern that leads the player away from his/her safe zone. For example, take a look at scrap station. The gold at the bottom of the map is a risky expansion. If a player takes it early, the spectator is asking himself, is that going to get scouted? Are they going to pull this off? It's a tense situation every time you see a scout get anywhere near a risky expansion.
But what I've become extremely fond of in my layout designs are expansion patterns that move the player out into the open and close to the opponents base. As a player takes a third and a fourth, they should have to put themselves out there. Making it more difficult for them to defend all of these bases and force them to move closer to conflict. I think Match Point does a perfect job of this. You have the main and natural, then you've got a third near your natural, but it is mineral only. If you want a third with gas, you have to travel further out and control the high ground area to defend it. Once you've taken the corner expansion and defended the high ground, the next closest expansion is right behind your opponents base! Now, that creates serious conflict. The longer the game goes the more bold your expansion choices become and the more your opponent is forced to attack them.
That, in my opinion is what makes a game exciting to watch. Not exploitable terrain features.
|
I'm actually kind of surprised that after reading this, I kind of agree with you. I've always thought spectators are what's going to make or break Starcraft 2 as an e-sport. That goes without saying. A product needs a consumer.
One thing I noticed was that many of your "imbalances" or "exploits" that you've listed are on Scrap Station. I honestly like that map. Its a very, very interesting map for a spectator. Its also got that very close Island expansion that falls under your category of "risky expansion". The LOS blockers in the middle also add quite an interesting dynamic and the destructible rocks path provides an interesting dynamic for all races (fast creep spread, tanks, colossi, etc.) It also has that very air-favoured dynamic that can also be interesting for a spectator. A player needs to know how to play a map like Scrap Station, and thats very cool in some ways. Many of the expansions are risky, but your main and natural feel safe (if you keep vision of that high ground of course).
That being said, balance is a very very important feature on a map and map-makers (and Blizzard) need to find ways to make a map interesting while including interesting quirks and dynamics.
|
I do think that certain events such as the GSL get more exciting by a lot of diversity in the pool, and imbalances are part of that. This concept only works within a pool, and when the disadvantages are evenly split between the maps in this pool and this is hard to do. I don't know if gimicky features are necessary for this. When I see someone drop on the cliff on LT in a tournament, I'm not excited. A feature that gets abused like all the time is not interesting any more. Smaller ones that don't give as much of an advantage are better suited, because they won't be used as often.
Another problem is that most of the maps we create will not be used in tournaments, so spectator value doesn't matter. If we start creating maps that work well together as a pool but are imba by themselves, people will look at one of them, say they're crap and won't play them.
|
@BoomStevo
+ Show Spoiler +But I also think it needs to be a compromise. You can't have a map with features that the pros will not play. If they hate your map, then it won't get played. No matter how exciting it makes it for the spectator. You have to make sure your maps are exciting for the spectator and exciting for the player at the same time. 100% Agree.
+ Show Spoiler +A lot of the features you pointed our are problematic, in my opinion. I think they do as you describe but, on the Blizzard maps, are used poorly. They can be used to create excitement for the spectator but they are placed on mains and naturals. For example, you mentioned cliffs above naturals, cliffs above the main, and back door rocks. These are all nice examples, yet they attack the player early on. I like them but I don't think they should be used on mains and naturals.
I feel like mains and naturals should feel safe (notice I say "feel"). The reason for this is because if your main and natural feels safe, then you're more likely to attack. Battles are exciting. Also, I don't want a player to lose after 5 minutes. I don't want the game to go on forever, but if a game is a highly anticipated match then I don't want someone to lose early on from a cliff drop. I want to see an amazing game that lasts upwards of 30 mins packed with action the whole way through. I mostly agree. But I personally put a lot more emphasis on keeping the mains safe than naturals. I think that naturals should sometimes be able to be punished, but not too much (especially not to the point of lost temple). I think there should be a variety of styles like this. Both large and maps should definitely have hard-to-punish naturals, but some should also be somewhat punishable (again, not too much).
+ Show Spoiler +To me, the best way to make a map that I'd like to watch is to create risky yet rewarding expansions or an expansion pattern that leads the player away from his/her safe zone. For example, take a look at scrap station. The gold at the bottom of the map is a risky expansion. If a player takes it early, the spectator is asking himself, is that going to get scouted? Are they going to pull this off? It's a tense situation every time you see a scout get anywhere near a risky expansion.
But what I've become extremely fond of in my layout designs are expansion patterns that move the player out into the open and close to the opponents base. As a player takes a third and a fourth, they should have to put themselves out there. Making it more difficult for them to defend all of these bases and force them to move closer to conflict. I think Match Point does a perfect job of this. You have the main and natural, then you've got a third near your natural, but it is mineral only. If you want a third with gas, you have to travel further out and control the high ground area to defend it. Once you've taken the corner expansion and defended the high ground, the next closest expansion is right behind your opponents base! Now, that creates serious conflict. The longer the game goes the more bold your expansion choices become and the more your opponent is forced to attack them.
That, in my opinion is what makes a game exciting to watch. Not exploitable terrain features. Again, I mostly agree. But I personally think there's another side to it. Expanding away from your base should be risky, but not always because the expansion itself is risky, sometimes it makes more sense to make it risky because it can promote counter-attacks towards your main/natural, and not necessarily your expansion(s). Of course, not in such a way that promotes base trades, but having two battles occurring at the same time is pretty interesting IMO.
I don't want you to misunderstand me, these map features should by no means be overpowered and almost always the game should continue after it happens. But there should also be plenty features that make certain kinds of attacks viable and reasonable to try or at least scout to see if it's worth trying.
I think Antares777 said it rather well in this thread that is now closed (I read this after writing my thread and making my next map that sorta does this but it made me feel good about hitting post which I actually almost didn't do ) "A balanced map includes EVERYTHING. they include islands, maybe in base expos, chokes, open areas, hard to take thirds and fourths, backdoors, cliffs at nats for harass, etc." - Antares777
------------------------------------------------------------------
@flowandebb
+ Show Spoiler +That being said, balance is a very very important feature on a map and map-makers (and Blizzard) need to find ways to make a map interesting while including interesting quirks and dynamics. Well said, and I never meant to imply anything different. Balance should never be sacrificed, but high spectator value is always the goal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
@Koagel
+ Show Spoiler +I do think that certain events such as the GSL get more exciting by a lot of diversity in the pool, and imbalances are part of that. This concept only works within a pool, and when the disadvantages are evenly split between the maps in this pool and this is hard to do. Yes I certainly agree. But I also think that maps that favor a certain race a little bit more than the other two is just a tendency and not really something you have to aim for, as long as you can recognize who it favors after it's been played a lot.
Well of course not and I implied that somewhere in my thread (I don't blame you for missing it). It is important that each individual map becomes interesting of course.
+ Show Spoiler +When I see someone drop on the cliff on LT in a tournament, I'm not excited. A feature that gets abused like all the time is not interesting any more. Smaller ones that don't give as much of an advantage are better suited, because they won't be used as often. Yes I see what you're saying. It was just a nice example IMO. I personally think the cliff on LT is a little too imbalanced and I personally never planned on making anything quite like it on any of my maps. If your natural is cliffable then there should be at least some path for you to get over to it by ground.
+ Show Spoiler +Another problem is that most of the maps we create will not be used in tournaments, so spectator value doesn't matter. While I agree with the first part, practice is practice. You are of course entitled to your own goals, but I know what mine are and I'm aiming as high as possible.
+ Show Spoiler +If we start creating maps that work well together as a pool but are imba by themselves, people will look at one of them, say they're crap and won't play them. Agreed. You probably already understand but I'm just gonna say again here that my personal idea is to make each individual map very balanced, but also promote a heaps of spectator value. I understand the value of having maps that aren't necessarily balanced in a balanced map pool; but I think that imbalanced maps can happen by themselves when you're on a quest for spectator value. It is of course up to the tournament organizer to identify which maps favor whom.
|
Once again Barrin makes an imba thread.
On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote:The Spectator Factor Imbalances that make balance. It comes down to something very fundamental. There are a variety of extremely "imbalanced" and extremely skill-based abilities in SC:BW (Dark Swarm, Ensnare, Plague, Irradiate, Defensive Matrix, Recall, Stasis, etc). To say that SC2 is completely lacking in abilities like these is utterly wrong. However, it's important to understand that not only are these spells significantly stronger in BW, but they also took more micro to use to their fullest extent AND to micro against properly. I've never seen anyone argue against this. But wait a second... doesn't imbalanced things make for an imbalanced game? NO. Absolutely not! What made SC:BW so incredibly balanced was a truly incredible distribution of these abilities (and the way they interacted with everything) for all three unique races. It really is quite a beautiful thing to watch in the hands of the masters. Marvel Vs Capcom 2 used a similar way to "balance" the gameplay too. There was some old write up about survivor, scrubs and balance that mentioned it. It said something about how by the time the players managed to actually divide the characters into tiers the next game was out.
On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote:EXAMPLE 4: Line of Sight blockers in well-traveled areas. + Show Spoiler +Yeah this one speaks for itself. This was more important before people started experiencing the now-obvious danger, but it's still good to have around; It's very fun to watch when things like this actually work. There's a 2v2 map that also uses LoS blockers very effectively although the name eludes me right now.
On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote:Alright, while that's a little cool it's not really my idea of "spectator value". Good spectator value usually gives good room for micro. Why not put these walls in the middle of an open area to restrict unit flow a little bit? Better yet, why not put multiple holes in the wall to let only certain types or only a certain amount of units flow through? + Show Spoiler + I understand that this can increase spectator value but at the frustration of the players. The last map that featured something like this, Demon's Forest, had to be swapped out in the middle of the season.
On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote:Final words: StarCraft 2 is an e-sport. You can have an extremely balanced map, but if nobody enjoys watching your map, chances are the players wont want to play it for very long. Disclaimer: I <3 you all!!! Especially the iCCup mapmaking team & iCCup TV, you guys are the shit :D I just see a new level of mapmaking on the horizon, and I hope everyone agrees. I also have a tremendous amount of confidence that we can get there before Blizzard ^_^ *GROUP HUG* :X Thanks for reading. - Barrin We love you too.
|
@G_Wen
Once again Barrin makes an imba thread. lol I'm wondering if this has a dual meaning because almost every thread I made actually deals with imbalance :D But thanks! (i think o.O)
Marvel Vs Capcom 2 used a similar way to "balance" the gameplay too. There was some old write up about survivor, scrubs and balance that mentioned it. It said something about how by the time the players managed to actually divide the characters into tiers the next game was out. I think I remember reading something like that... that wasn't that one "play to win" article was it?
There's a 2v2 map that also uses LoS blockers very effectively although the name eludes me right now. ^_^ Ya some things I mentioned have plenty of repeats through maps. I'm actually going through all blizzard maps coming up with more "spectator value" features I'm up to 10 more that haven't been mentioned at the moment, I'll update my second post in this thread when I finished.
I understand that this can increase spectator value but at the frustration of the players. The last map that featured something like this, Demon's Forest, had to be swapped out in the middle of the season. :O oic. Yeah I agree with that for now. But I still think its a feature that shouldn't be forgotten when people start getting bored of everything else (in the years to come). On a side note I've been noticing some blizz maps using some things a lot like what I said there.
We love you too. ^_^_^_^_^_^
------------------------------------------------------------------
@BoomStevo
I've been thinking more about what you said about forward harder to defend thirds/fourths etc. and I the more I think about it the more I realize how much I was underestimating it to begin with. This is a very good way to promote engagement (which in itself is spectator value) there's no doubt about it.
Something I didn't mention is that it can sometimes promote two-basing strategies if they're just too hard to defend ((edit: which IMO is the bane of spectator value because among the BW player complaints that I was talking about one of the biggest things was that a lot of the time it was just a big macrofest the first 10-15 minutes of the game and then there was just one big battle and the game was over)). But of course that it's up to us as the mapmakers to tweak things to be in just the right place, make entrances wide/tight enough etc which kind of goes along with how we should tweak these "spectator value" features in whatever way makes them not too strong (I've already said this but I felt it should have been said again because it's very important). Also I don't necessarily recommend reduplicating all of those features (like the blistering sands and natural cliff on lost temple with no ground path), some of them were there just to illustrate a point.
|
I disagree with the map pools being the thing that keeps people saying that bw is better. There's also the units like the vulture, reaver, lurker, etc. The units in sc2 are not entertaining at all compared to bw. That's the main reason for a lot of people (including me).
|
I love when these threads happen! =D
Your day9 quotation was well chosen, and well placed. I completely agree with the spirit of the OP. I would propose to refer to these map features as exploitable as opposed to imbalanced. You touch on this in the OP; there are lots of so-called "imbalanced" things in BW, but the way they interact keeps them at parity in terms of what leads to a win. There are also "imbalanced" things in SC2. You could extend the label to everything in an asymmetrical design, really. We respectfully use this meaning of imbalanced differently than "marauder stim imba" because it refers to the strategic significance, not the fairness. I think it could be clearer to say "exploitable" though.
I am going out of the way to discuss this because I don't want the conversation turned on its side because of improper articulation, even though I have faith in the custom map forumgoers to keep it calm and erudite.
The features of a map, as we all know, go a long way in deciding the balance of a matchup. Of course, mirror matches can't be imbalanced, no matter the terrain. However, on particularly atypical maps, there might be an overwhelmingly dominant strategy that results in a degenerate metagame on that particular map. Matchup imbalance and degenerate metagames are things that everyone abhors, and these are the things that game designers (and more specifically, map makers) try to avoid.
If one of the races can abusively win, it breaks the competitive legitimacy of the game. Luckily you can just throw out the map and move on. The same is true for maps that produce an invariant best strategy, which we try to avoid in a game where strategic deviation is the point. However, there are two problems.
The first is that we don't solve starcraft immediately and explicitly. How often have unbeatable strategies been overturned by investigating the right responses? If you throw out problematic game elements (like maps) too soon, you can miss important strategic developments that "fix" the problem, or rather, reveal that it was never a problem. (Incidentally this goes for patches as well, but let's not digress.)
The second is connected to what you bring up in the OP. Starcraft is a game of variety, not rote strategy where competition is based on execution. Obviously the players have not exhausted the depths and intricacies of interaction among the myriad game elements. This is to say, new and powerful strategies and counter-strategies will continue to emerge well into the future. This is only natural in a system comprised of so many unique elements; you can't possibly draw direct conclusions about tendencies. Nevertheless, the pace of development and the invariant pantheon of game elements might leave something to be desired for the spectator, despite quite a diversity of interactions, many of which cannot be well anticipated by laymen. The only variable part of the equation is the terrain on which a game is played. If you never deviate from the typical, you limit the gamespace (which is always being depleted of surprises). One of the most important roles of the terrain is to furnish new and exciting gameplay. This operates in concert, not at odds, with another major role: to offer a balanced competitive environment for the other game elements to play out.
What I'm getting at is that you can't draw a clear line between gimmicks and healthy variation. Professional players might complain, but everyone should push themselves to see the possibilities. If foxer never practiced his obscenely good marine splitting, we'd all be stuck in a false mindset where banelings always > marines.
Of course, the game elements of starcraft are unpredictable, so it is hard for a map maker to know if a gimmick is too much. Moreover, a map maker doesn't have exhaustive strategic foresight, so the implications of any given map feature cannot be 100% accounted for. As an example, take Blistering Sands. Many people complain about the back door rocks (which is a huge gripe in general), and I feel the concensus is that the map is a little on the degenerate side. Now, when someone at Blizzard created the map, clearly their intention was to create a time-modal game. Initially, the rush distance is very far and your natural is always rather defensible. Very soon you can be vulnerable from a different direction though, and that base to base distance is much less. If both back door rocks are gone, it's a very dangerous map for both players with close distances. The towers alleviate this sudden death feel, but only somewhat.
These intentions are rather general, and they play out more or less as expected, generally. But we can be certain that the mapmaker(s) had no idea that several cycles of patches affecting roaches would create a metagame for zerg that is rather different on that map, just to offer one single narrow observation. As high level matches are widely avoided on Blistering Sands, how can anyone really say if it's broken? Perhaps there is a wealth of slightly varied "indigenous" options that will never be fully explored because it takes work to find good strategies, and it's annoying to be forced to abandon standard as you know it if there's no promise that balance is attainable.
The map isn't demonstrably bad, it's just accepted that way.
This is the challenge. But not only will it be more fun to watch if maps have variable features, but the more we offer up "gimmicks", the more widely they will be assimilated. If even that is just slightly, it is for the better.
The creation of solid, standard, balanced maps is of course indispensable as well. For one, this improves the visibility and acceptability of custom melee maps as a genre.
Much less recognition will go to experimenters, but in my opinion this is a crucial task. I've dealt mainly in broad concepts, but I'll leave it at that for now so as not to lose focus too much. If the thread lives on I'll share some thoughts on more specifics like what's been discussed already.
Edit: Oh ya, terrain ideas... lol. I'll add some which I had been saving to show off in unfinished maps, but they might as well be introduced here for open minds.
(And edits for clarity.)
|
On November 21 2010 03:52 Barrin wrote: @BoomStevo
I've been thinking more about what you said about forward harder to defend thirds/fourths etc. and I the more I think about it the more I realize how much I was underestimating it to begin with. This is a very good way to promote engagement (which in itself is spectator value) there's no doubt about it.
Something I didn't mention is that it can sometimes promote two-basing strategies if they're just too hard to defend ((edit: which IMO is the bane of spectator value because among the BW player complaints that I was talking about one of the biggest things was that a lot of the time it was just a big macrofest the first 10-15 minutes of the game and then there was just one big battle and the game was over)). But of course that it's up to us as the mapmakers to tweak things to be in just the right place, make entrances wide/tight enough etc which kind of goes along with how we should tweak these "spectator value" features in whatever way makes them not too strong (I've already said this but I felt it should have been said again because it's very important). Also I don't necessarily recommend reduplicating all of those features (like the blistering sands and natural cliff on lost temple with no ground path), some of them were there just to illustrate a point. The main point of what I'm trying to get at is that expansions should be easy to take but make it harder to defend. Not necessarily that the expansion in itself is hard to defend, but it makes defending all of the player's bases more difficult. Making something easy to take, though, usually means making it somewhat close to your last expansion. Therefore, making your army to spread out as little as possible, yet still making you vulnerable to more attacks.
I think Xel'Naga Caverns does this well. Taking your third is easy, other than taking out the rocks; the third is pretty close to the natural. Yet, there's a ramp leading out of the third and where does it point? It points directly at your opponent. The third was easy to take, feels easy to defend, yet you've just moved an expansion closer to your opponent, making the opponent's attack distance to your closest base shorter.
|
Well, mirrors can be imba if the positions are imba.
I believe that many of the features that are disliked today and pretty much always discouraged will be viable in the future, simply because mappers will run out of possibilities to create maps that satisfy the current zeitgeist. A main problem with adding new features is that they have to be thoroughly tested and the average mapper's possibilities to do so are quite limited. Sure you can play your maps with friends, but this does not qualify as thorough testing in most cases. Maybe a community effort can solve this problem? If we want to try how certain features work, it might be good to add them to some of the more popular Blizzard maps, as it is easier to observe the changes when you know how the map is played without them.
On the Blistering Sands example, we could simply try to change the cliffs so you can shoot the roaches attacking the rocks from the sides and make the distance rocks/nat longer for the attacker, then see how it plays out. I believe that some of the features people don't like would not be as much of a problem if the terrain around them wouldn't boost them to a point where they start to suck.
|
I disagree with the map pools being the thing that keeps people saying that bw is better. I didn't actually say that... I just said that it was always brought up in each discussion I've participated in. By no means did I say that it was the sole factor or even a main one. It is definitely the one we have the most control over though.
There's also the units like the vulture, reaver, lurker, etc. The units in sc2 are not entertaining at all compared to bw. That's the main reason for a lot of people (including me). I understand what you're saying but I question your knowledge of the potential of SC2 units. But of course I also question everyone's knowledge of the same thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------ @EatThePath @BoomStevo @Koagel
100% agree. I have nothing to add.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I found a thread that deals with something rather similar... I highly recommend everyone check it out. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=171088 Updated OP's links to include it.
I'm also up to 14 more things that haven't been touched on in the OP (one or two of which came directly from boomstevo who will of course receive credit). I just have to think about it a little more then I'll put it in the second post.
|
This is a really really good post. It's really well thought out and really well done.
That being said, here's my concern with the spectator factor. Yes, there is a thrill for the spectators when someone overcomes a natural challenge, and yes Starcraft is an industry built on the spectators. However the problem is that in certain cases, it can be considered unfair to the players themselves to have limitations put on their skill in order to appease the crowd. Just as the players have an obligation to play to their very best in every game, we as the spectators have an obligation to want the players to be able to play to their utmost ability.
|
On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote: I love when these threads happen! =D Who doesn't?
On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote: The features of a map, as we all know, go a long way in deciding the balance of a matchup. Of course, mirror matches can't be imbalanced, no matter the terrain. Not true, even symmetrical maps can lead to slight amounts of imbalance. Barrin's previous posts go on to describe this at length. For example addons can only be placed to the right of a building allowing one terran player to have a stronger wall at the ramp than the other. Creep spreads further on one side than another again leading to some small imbalance.
On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote: The first is that we don't solve starcraft immediately and explicitly. How often have unbeatable strategies been overturned by investigating the right responses? If you throw out problematic game elements (like maps) too soon, you can miss important strategic developments that "fix" the problem, or rather, reveal that it was never a problem. (Incidentally this goes for patches as well, but let's not digress.) Oh please do. Make another post about this.
On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote:Of course, the game elements of starcraft are unpredictable, so it is hard for a map maker to know if a gimmick is too much. Moreover, a map maker doesn't have exhaustive strategic foresight, so the implications of any given map feature cannot be 100% accounted for. While you can never exhaustively test a map to the point of perfect balance you can test all the common builds in the metagame and if the map plays well and is balanced then it's a good map. Any uncommon deviations from standard play can only increase the level of excitement.
On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote:The map isn't demonstrably bad, it's just accepted that way. This is the challenge. But not only will it be more fun to watch if maps have variable features, but the more we offer up "gimmicks", the more widely they will be assimilated. If even that is just slightly, it is for the better. The creation of solid, standard, balanced maps is of course indispensable as well. For one, this improves the visibility and acceptability of custom melee maps as a genre. Well said. The problem is when "features" become gimmicks and it's a fine balancing act. The one thing that can absolutely kill a map is the inclusion of too many "features".
On November 21 2010 03:52 Barrin wrote: I think I remember reading something like that... that wasn't that one "play to win" article was it? Yes.
Ideally a map would feature gimmick that are both equally difficult to exploit and to stop. I think this is the point when something stops being a gimmick and becomes a point of interest on the map.
|
@G_Wen, in order:
I should have been clearer when talking about mirror matches. Rotationally symmetric maps with more than 2 start locations always have imbalances with adjacent spawns, so this is not what I meant. Symmetric maps in mirror matches have zero opportunity for asymmetric exploits, excepting terran add-ons and creep tumor lopsidedness, (any others we haven't thought of?) and this is not what I meant. I meant to say, in terms of the strategy, both players are looking at exactly the same thing no matter which perspective. Really I'm just saying, by definition, it's symmetrical. This is to demonstrate that in mirror matches, the only concern is degenerate metagame, which is a direct outcome of the map, and the only one. But I can't blame truth-seekers for nitpicking.
I may write up a thing about patches following the lines of my terrain post, and address the indefinite nature of testing.
On November 24 2010 02:41 G_Wen wrote: Ideally a map would feature gimmick that are both equally difficult to exploit and to stop. I think this is the point when something stops being a gimmick and becomes a point of interest on the map.
Yes. That's a great way to put it.
---------- edit: Re: the other map balance thread: It's really interesting that so many people are in favour of some degree of imbalance. And not just from a realist perspective, resigned to imperfection. People want minor imbalance because it's entertaining. Important theme being reiterated a lot: the map pool is really what matters, not any individual map. I would recommend to anyone reading either thread: whenever someone uses the word imbalanced, ask what they are really trying to say. I don't mean they were wrong to use that word, but what do they mean specifically by using it?
(from the other thread)
On November 23 2010 08:27 Nightfall.589 wrote:That's not true at all. There's nothing imbalanced about a siege tank. There's something imbalanced about a siege tank on the LT cliff. You can take a perfectly balanced game, and easily create maps for it which will create imbalances.
You see what I mean? Clearly these posters mean different things. If a siege tank isn't imbalanced, we mean its unit stats are fair. And its cost. And the time it takes to tech up to siege mode safely. And so on... any statement about balance necessarily speaks to the entirety of the game, if indirectly.
Balance is subjective--I'll put an explanation in my post about patches. The salient part is that we recognize it when things are in a dynamic state, lots of heterogeneity. From a concept-oriented point of view, this indicates to me that maps should follow suit: have varied terrain with differing implications depending on the matchup and the strategies being used.
----------
Like you, Barrin, I am formulating how to present terrain. I'll race you to post it. (jk) ;D
|
updated second post with examples #13 - #26.
------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Show Spoiler +That being said, here's my concern with the spectator factor. Yes, there is a thrill for the spectators when someone overcomes a natural challenge, and yes Starcraft is an industry built on the spectators. However the problem is that in certain cases, it can be considered unfair to the players themselves to have limitations put on their skill in order to appease the crowd. Just as the players have an obligation to play to their very best in every game, we as the spectators have an obligation to want the players to be able to play to their utmost ability. Yes of course, this is the perfect concern to have. It is our job as the mapmaker to make sure that nothing is too overpowered, but by no means does that mean that these features should not exist at least partially.
------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Show Spoiler +Not true, even symmetrical maps can lead to slight amounts of imbalance. Barrin's previous posts go on to describe this at length. For example addons can only be placed to the right of a building allowing one terran player to have a stronger wall at the ramp than the other. Creep spreads further on one side than another again leading to some small imbalance. Oh yes I forgot to mention that ^_^
------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Show Spoiler +Like you, Barrin, I am formulating how to present terrain. I'll race you to post it. (jk) ;D I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean
But for what I think you mean, I uncharacteristically like to sum it up by just saying that I think that nobody fully understands balance and nobody ever will Of course there will be plenty of people that understands most of it... but you can tell from my previous threads that I value every tiny little spec of the tiniest of the smallest of things (which is actually almost the theme of my next thread that will be called "Every Inch Matters"). I probably have undiagnosed OCD ^_^ But I guess I just embrace it and use it to my advantage instead of letting it slow me down unnecessarily (actually that's fairly questionable now that I think about it o.O but its usually worth it in the end so maybe not). + Show Spoiler +I'm the kind of person that will sit there and think about something (and how it relates to other things) for many hours when most people would just come up with an opinion and move on relatively quickly. I'm not the kind of person you want making important decisions that need to made quickly, but I like to think that I rarely miss anything when I try not to. I never actually thought about it this way but: maybe that's part of the reason why I choose to be a mapmaker o.O
|
I came up with another one... You'll see it used prominently in my next map, but it's pretty cool IMO. It's actually quite akin to EXAMPLE #1... but instead of being over mineral fields you can put it in places like in front of bases. I don't necessarily mean like what was seen in my Anger Stronghold map... but it can be a very powerful contain tool and even a proxy area for starport or even pylons. I'll show you exactly what I mean in a week or so.
|
|
|
|