Understanding StarCraft: Map Control - Page 2
Blogs > Chef |
palanq
United States761 Posts
| ||
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On January 11 2011 15:36 emperorchampion wrote: Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here: Your points here: Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth. I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process. Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true". Again, I disagree. Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map. As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react. The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool. As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression. The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game. Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak. None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2. | ||
Crazyeyes
Canada1342 Posts
Going to go watch some BW. | ||
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
| ||
Advocado
Denmark994 Posts
Dis regard what I have said. | ||
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On January 12 2011 11:19 Advocado wrote: I'm sorry, I should have noticed that the topic was mainly aimed towards Brood War and not SC2. Dis regard what I have said. It's not that the topic of map control is inherently irrelevant to SC2 - it's just that overall, SC2 isn't at the level *yet* where it matters like it did in BW. And yes, I would argue that because of things like PF, Warpgates, and small maps, map control isn't as important right now in SC2, but that's not necessarily set in stone. Hopefully we'll see SC2 develop into a game where this topic will be quite relevant | ||
Storm[PT]
120 Posts
| ||
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
On January 11 2011 16:36 wherebugsgo wrote: + Show Spoiler + Again, I disagree. Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map. As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react. The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool. As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression. The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game. Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak. None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2. Ok, I see your point now. I'm not throughly convinced that map-control is mostly useless, but whatever. I'm curious on how you think SC2 will develop in the future. Do you think the new GSL maps will create more dynamic game play, or is it more of an issue with the game it self? Personally, I'm not really sure how it will play out- some of the maps seem to encourage expanding and longer games, but I don't know if that will stop these powerful all-ins. | ||
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On January 11 2011 10:58 Chef wrote: Probably a more insightful example of mapcontrol than anything I wrote up there occurs in low level TvZs all the time. Terran has a big army that can beat Zergs army directly. Terran thinks 'ok, time to mess with the Zerg' and he attacks a fringe expo. Zerg counters his main and does way more damage than losing his one expo cost him. This is Terran thinking he has map control, but he's actually giving his map control up by putting his army out of position. Zerg just counters and expos somewhere else, and it's a really strong move because of this. Of course, if Terran can defend his base and attack at the same time, then that is truer, or at least stronger map control. This is a great example of how real game map control is much more complex than the binary model of either one player or the other having it. You see, the unit/ball movement speeds, or reaction speeds are what define map control in game, and because of their large variance, map control in real game is a very complex nonlinear system. IE the crackling raids/doom drops that zerg can do in late game even if not having direct army vs army map control, purely because of the insane movement speed of cracklings/ultras or hidden large number of overlords. In fact, utilizing the binary model of map control is the reason why many zergs lose, even at pro level. They fail to understand that despite not having ability to take on enemy army, because of insane damage and speed of cracklings/positional control of lurker defiler, they can get around it because of racial advantage. Look at the latest game of JD vs Baby for example of this. JD was almost dead, baby couldve crushed his army in a head on battle, but utilizing position control of lurker swarm(and other godly multitasking of the few units he had) and slow reaction due to slow movement of m&m ball, he could deny baby's nat from mining and come back into the game | ||
djcube
United States985 Posts
| ||
kiero
Canada136 Posts
| ||
agarangu
Chile274 Posts
Thanks a lot! | ||
~ava
Canada378 Posts
| ||
| ||