|
Something i'm having a hard time finding - Possibly not using the right keywords - is any information on mapping conventions, or more importantly, why they are as they are.
I'm looking into a few ideas i may want to translate into actual maps, but i'm wondering whether i'll be capping the knees of the established rules and conventions, or whether i could be kicking race balance in the nuts.
As for a specific example:
There are (almost) always 8 mineral nodes and 2 gas nodes to a base, in a half circle (sort of) around the base location. Why that number and why that layout? Why not 10 mineral nodes and 1 gas node, or 3 gas nodes and 5 mineral nodes? Something that forces people to get creative with their early game builds.
Those layouts don't have to be the same around the map either. Maybe it's a half circle facing away from the base location. Maybe there are 5 directly accessible mineral nodes with 3 behind them as soon as the first ones are mined out, or a gas node surrounded by mineral nodes.
And that's just the start. Why are pretty much all maps only playing around with the general map layout, but never the specifics? Would such a deviant map even be considered for official play, or is it a lost cause from the getgo, even if it produces cool (and balanced) games?
|
On July 07 2015 04:10 MChrome wrote: Something i'm having a hard time finding - Possibly not using the right keywords - is any information on mapping conventions, or more importantly, why they are as they are.
I'm looking into a few ideas i may want to translate into actual maps, but i'm wondering whether i'll be capping the knees of the established rules and conventions, or whether i could be kicking race balance in the nuts.
As for a specific example:
There are (almost) always 8 mineral nodes and 2 gas nodes to a base, in a half circle (sort of) around the base location. Why that number and why that layout? Why not 10 mineral nodes and 1 gas node, or 3 gas nodes and 5 mineral nodes? Something that forces people to get creative with their early game builds.
Those layouts don't have to be the same around the map either. Maybe it's a half circle facing away from the base location. Maybe there are 5 directly accessible mineral nodes with 3 behind them as soon as the first ones are mined out, or a gas node surrounded by mineral nodes.
It's the standard Blizzard set for ladder, and since thats where more than 99% of games are played, thats what all maps follow.
And that's just the start. Why are pretty much all maps only playing around with the general map layout, but never the specifics? Would such a deviant map even be considered for official play, or is it a lost cause from the getgo, even if it produces cool (and balanced) games?
because that would deviate from melee standards, and again, wouldn't get to ladder
|
Because blizzard makes the rules when it comes to resources and if you dont follow there is 0% chance of your map ever making it into the TLMC or ladder. Furthermore it would break the meta to change the resource numbers and some people dont want that.
|
But i couldn't find any hard rules from Blizzard, saying that there always should be x mineral patches and y gas nodes at bases, for example, or in what layout they have to be in. I get the strong feeling that the only reason maps work as they do now is because those things have become an accepted convention and no one even pays attention to it anymore, simply assuming it to be the law when it might actually not be at all.
That it would upset the meta is exactly the point of such maps - It creates opportunities for new builds and strategies in a way the current map-making conventions can't. 'Meta' isn't a set of rules that have to be followed, it's a set of playstyles emerging from the tools players are given, and i think that stepping away from certain mapping conventions can create a far more entertaining and interesting meta than is the case at the moment.
|
it really is an actual standard, and we've seen half bases get changed to full bases. it's also cited in the TLMC as a ladder standard, and has also been adressed in the few communication between Blizzard.
|
Pretty much what Meavis said. The only fantasy you can use is gold bases (only 6min2gas though I think?), but then you get the hate of a rather large % of the community who still lives in 2010 and thinks gold bases are inherently broken. Why? Because they are gold bases.
|
As a P, I think there are some things a wannabe competitive map can't feature :
1) unwallable natural (I'm OK with maps like Metalopolis on which you can have a pretty good Nexus wall even in HotS/LotV). 2) large backdoor with no defender advantage (Expedition Lost is probably acceptable, Bridgehead is not). 3) impossible thirds (you dislike Protoss 2 base play as much as I do when it's a go-to style ? Don't force us to do it).
On the other hand, I think it would be good to have some maps that are slightly broken : if the map pool has 2-3 standard map pools no race is especially advantaged on, you can afford to have one map where blink is strong, one chokey map, one very open map, and one map where drop play/mutas tear it up. If that was actually thought out the map pool could be balanced in this way and we'd see map specific strategies in a much much more interesting way. The map pool we got feels like it was just "throw in 3 strange maps and see what happens"... Of course, maybe I'm wrong and it's all part of a greater scheme (have us play LotV ?).
|
Bridgehead is in the official map pool though..... (what a crappy map that is ;p)
Still, that is too bad. Would an unconventional map be refused for competitive play even if it's properly balanced and leads to entertaining and creative games? I just fear that the current conventions have been etched so deeply into the design ethos for the game that i can't help but feel that the only way to go is down....
|
the problem is that isn't even a way to determine whether experimental maps are "properly balanced" before getting dumped right into wcs, since progamers consider any practice not done on the official tournament map pool a waste of time, and everyone else just plays ladder anyway which are the same maps.
|
On July 07 2015 18:17 MChrome wrote: Bridgehead is in the official map pool though..... (what a crappy map that is ;p)
Still, that is too bad. Would an unconventional map be refused for competitive play even if it's properly balanced and leads to entertaining and creative games? I just fear that the current conventions have been etched so deeply into the design ethos for the game that i can't help but feel that the only way to go is down....
It's a vicious circle.
to have an unconventional map proven, it would have to be played, but in order for it to be played, it has to reach ladder, as maps outside often have none to a few games on them, but it won't reach ladder, because its unconventional and unproven.
besides that, many features will never ever reach the ladder, as they have to be casual friendly, which is an area blizzard is quite strict on.
|
I dont know if there is any mappers here who know anything about the chess scene, but there is a pretty perfect comparison there. Ok so some players complain that in chess everyone keeps going the same few openings every game, and that the skill in chess is little to do with how much strategical thinking and very much just how far you can memorize the correct moves and counter moves in certain situations. That is why there is this game called chess960 and variations of it where the starting location of pieces is randomized. This way its pretty much impossible for the players to just memorize what they need to do in each situation and instead have to figure stuff out themselves. Now the problem is that by far the most people dont want this. They rather play the game they spent years on learning. Also some top tier players have commented things like "chess960 is good for people who are too lazy to learn the game"
Now do you see the relation here? If you have followed what people think about the new "not so standard" ladder maps its pretty negative. They dont want all of their builds to become obsolete just because the builds dont work the certain map. If the community didnt like the "stale" metagame, they would have not stayed for over 5 years. Meaning that almost everyone who is left on the sc2 scene does want to things to stay as they are, just like in chess. There were lot of map experimentation during the first year of the game if you count beta in, and the current formula was the most popular one. Many RTS games have map generators where each match is played on a different, and many times even, asymmetrical map. But this is something the community needs to grow up with.
On July 07 2015 05:49 OtherWorld wrote: Pretty much what Meavis said. The only fantasy you can use is gold bases (only 6min2gas though I think?), but then you get the hate of a rather large % of the community who still lives in 2010 and thinks gold bases are inherently broken. Why? Because they are gold bases. Pretty sure community hates gold bases more now than they did in 2010, and for a reason. In 2010 people didnt know how to abuse them so much. In 2015 its just an annoying thing as zergs can take them as naturals in ZvP, which makes protoss very angry. In lategame gold base as a feature does not really aumont to jack shit. Its just a normal base except you requiere 4 or 6 less workers to saturate it which is pretty indifferent. So why even have them at all?
On July 07 2015 18:42 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 18:17 MChrome wrote: Bridgehead is in the official map pool though..... (what a crappy map that is ;p)
Still, that is too bad. Would an unconventional map be refused for competitive play even if it's properly balanced and leads to entertaining and creative games? I just fear that the current conventions have been etched so deeply into the design ethos for the game that i can't help but feel that the only way to go is down.... It's a vicious circle. to have an unconventional map proven, it would have to be played, but in order for it to be played, it has to reach ladder, as maps outside often have none to a few games on them, but it won't reach ladder, because its unconventional and unproven. besides that, many features will never ever reach the ladder, as they have to be casual friendly, which is an area blizzard is quite strict on. Legit question here. Why do most of the people are for these "unproven" map features act like its a fact that the features are not game breaking, its just players have not or do not want to adapt? Also Meavis i dont know where you got that whole casual thing. In lower level games strategy matters exponentially less. Most games on lower levels are decided on who fucked up their core mechanics less, be it macro or basic micro. Not on strategy countering another strategy.
|
changing gas counts would not just upset the meta but obliterate balance, you can't reduce it because certain races need minimum gas to even be playable and if you give them more gas on fewer bases the tech turtling/2base allin potential would be absolutely fucking insane esp for protoss. it's not an idea that has value, it's like saying "well what if there were a map with a bunch of pods where marines can shoot without being reached by melee", it wouldn't be "interesting" it would just make standard zerg vs t void
|
On July 07 2015 19:15 NasusAndDraven wrote: I dont know if there is any mappers here who know anything about the chess scene, but there is a pretty perfect comparison there. Ok so some players complain that in chess everyone keeps going the same few openings every game, and that the skill in chess is little to do with how much strategical thinking and very much just how far you can memorize the correct moves and counter moves in certain situations. That is why there is this game called chess960 and variations of it where the starting location of pieces is randomized. This way its pretty much impossible for the players to just memorize what they need to do in each situation and instead have to figure stuff out themselves. Now the problem is that by far the most people dont want this. They rather play the game they spent years on learning. Also some top tier players have commented things like "chess960 is good for people who are too lazy to learn the game"
I played chess when I was a kid, got up to 1550 or something like that, which is quite respectable for a youngster but not amazing. Probably could have gotten a lot higher if I actually studied chess books but man that took the fun out of it
I feel like chess360 vs. chess is definitely an intellect vs. knowledge thing. Someone with a sharp intellect will excel in unpredictable situations where they have to figure stuff out on the fly, but someone who has spent a lot of time just memorizing variations will do well in normal chess (to a point, there are of course some mid and lategame scenarios which can still be somewhat unique). So of course I support 360 (and hence unusual maps) given what you've learned about me.
I think the majority of people consider someone to be more deserving if they have a sharp intellect vs. simply memorizing stuff. So if that is indeed the case, we should be supporting the things that make the geniuses shine, not the mindless memory drones. (although that probably highlights a deeper problem with SC2; there are a lot of high level pros that are probably much less intelligent than Catz (who is a game genius, most would agree), but he still loses to them because.. APM. It would be nice if APM still mattered, but to a lesser degree and decision-making and brilliant strategy were a bit more important)
|
On July 09 2015 10:14 Fatam wrote: I feel like chess360 vs. chess is definitely an intellect vs. knowledge thing. Someone with a sharp intellect will excel in unpredictable situations where they have to figure stuff out on the fly, but someone who has spent a lot of time just memorizing variations will do well in normal chess
On a slightly unrelated note, this kinda reminds me of success in weekend tourneys vs preparation based formats. Sort of a "raw skill/gamesense" vs "preparation and planning". Obviously it's still possible to prepare for opponents ahead of time to some extent at a weekender, but there are players whose skillset favours one over another.
Back to topic, I think it's important to have unusual maps in the map pool, although if people think about the game a certain way that's partly due to a certain kind of play being encouraged by the map pool, even subtly. Upsetting this could result in a lot of rage for Blizzard... Having become more aware of Community Maps through the TL comps and their inclusion in ladder, I really want to start playing some games on more unusual maps. Even if you can't ladder, making abusivenonstandard stuff work on these maps is really fun
|
On July 07 2015 04:10 MChrome wrote: Something i'm having a hard time finding - Possibly not using the right keywords - is any information on mapping conventions, or more importantly, why they are as they are. Possibly you should not short change yourself (not listing what you did find makes it seem like you did not find anything and I find that impossible to swallow, sorry..).
I'm looking into a few ideas i may want to translate into actual maps, but i'm wondering whether i'll be capping the knees of the established rules and conventions, or whether i could be kicking race balance in the nuts. (#yoda voice#) "Do or do not!" "Ignored be and again and again try, back down never, surrender never!
As for "mapping conventions":
1/ Map is uploaded / hyped on scented forums 2/Map is ignored 3/Map gets no players even when hosted 24/7 online Insert extra coin and start over
1/ Map is uploaded / hyped 2/Map is fun 3/Map gets players (a lot of players) Then the real work starts because you have become blizz (let us all fondly bow to gameheart for being "an" example of that)
A/Map is hyped B/Map is good #insert useless appealing/misleading graph# tldr of missing graph: A and B are not the same, and mostly A precedes B, which is so sad I made a poll to feel a little better
Poll: Ladder melee units/maps are meant to?(Vote): Blizzard ladder melee units/maps are meant to get the purest form of rts there is available (Vote): Community ladder melee units/maps are meant to get the purest form of rts there is available (Vote): lurker duck option (Vote): Community ladder melee units/maps must be as experimental as possible so as to best shape the game (Vote): Com/lad/melee units/maps must conform to blizzard standard as possible, they know better (Vote): lurker rabbit option (Vote): I remember that blizz said tournaments would introduce new maps (Vote): I forgot that tournaments are the people responsible (Vote): Never back down, never surrender!
|
On July 07 2015 23:02 brickrd wrote: changing gas counts would not just upset the meta but obliterate balance, you can't reduce it because certain races need minimum gas to even be playable and if you give them more gas on fewer bases the tech turtling/2base allin potential would be absolutely fucking insane esp for protoss. it's not an idea that has value, it's like saying "well what if there were a map with a bunch of pods where marines can shoot without being reached by melee", it wouldn't be "interesting" it would just make standard zerg vs t void
I'm fairly sure that this won't be the case.
All races need gas. Also mind that 'just' reducing or increasing gas isn't a good idea, the map has to be designed as a whole, not in seperate parts. The map structure could be changed up to allow for changes like that without affecting balance.
You're thinking of current/classic map design with only gas amounts changed, but that isn't the point.
That said, changing gas amounts isn't even necessary, you could play around with their location just as much as the amount itself.
Think of the bigger picture, don't zoom in on a single tiny issue and blow it up without taking anything else into account
Personally, i'd rather see stuff being tried for a while, instead of shot down after 5 minutes of intense brainstorming. A lot of stuff that people initially said would suck and cause the end of the game ended up being pretty popular because they got time to breathe.
|
On July 09 2015 18:19 MChrome wrote: A lot of stuff that people initially said would suck and cause the end of the game ended up being pretty popular because they got time to breathe. like what?
|
On July 09 2015 18:21 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 18:19 MChrome wrote: A lot of stuff that people initially said would suck and cause the end of the game ended up being pretty popular because they got time to breathe. like what?
For some reason i had something with ghosts in mind while i typed this, but now that you mention it, i can't think of any unit changes....
Still, i do think map experimention should be encouraged a bit more.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
One problem within mapping is that a lot of newer mappers come in with the idea that they are going to revolutionise mapping or break mapping in some way and be really creative. The truth is, unless you understand how standard maps work and what goes into making those balanced there's little hope of you ever creating a successful experimental map.
Basic rules that standard maps should usually follow include things like
- Standardised mineral/gas values and placement (no IeZaeL mineral lines please)
- A natural to natural rush distance longer than 40s (timed using a worker)
- Third bases should be within 2-2.5 tumors distance from the natural
- Features like backdoors and gold bases need to have their balance impacts accounted for. e.g. Backdoors require the defenders travel distance to be shorter than the aggressors, gold bases need to have counter play options if they're available early and so on.
- Maps should be reasonably sized, e.g. using the current map pool as a guide.
While Bridgehead may seem like a horribly broken map, it actually ticks all of these boxes and so in some sense has the potential to be a successful map. There are some bugs on the current map which powers up attacks on the back doors which hopefully will be getting addressed really soon which will hopefully improve the map. In any case, the fact that Bridgehead can exist despite these 'standardisation' restrictions shows that there's still a lot of room for creativity despite this. This also emphasizes the fact you need to be able to understand standard before you can break standard.
|
On July 09 2015 21:03 Plexa wrote: While Bridgehead may seem like a horribly broken map, it actually ticks all of these boxes and so in some sense has the potential to be a successful map. There are some bugs on the current map which powers up attacks on the back doors which hopefully will be getting addressed really soon which will hopefully improve the map. In any case, the fact that Bridgehead can exist despite these 'standardisation' restrictions shows that there's still a lot of room for creativity despite this. This also emphasizes the fact you need to be able to understand standard before you can break standard.
As far as I know zerg has a 100% winrate vs protoss in bridgehead in "high level" tournament games. I admit I have not seen every game of such, but more than the two that liquidpedia claims.
|
|
|
|