In as many words as you want, describe your perfect ladder map.
Maps: + Show Spoiler +
terraform - Dasan Station - Circle Syndrome - Fighting Spirit
Links: + Show Spoiler +
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
In as many words as you want, describe your perfect ladder map. Maps: + Show Spoiler + terraform - Dasan Station - Circle Syndrome - Fighting Spirit Links: + Show Spoiler + | ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Not actually, though my winrate on it is pretty good. MorroW gave his opinion on this a few months ago: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/507315-how-to-create-the-perfect-map-in-starcraft-2. | ||
Senkii
Hungary37 Posts
| ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
In a ladder map, I don't care that much about high-level balance, because a lot of the things just don't matter to me that much - neither I nor my opponents are good enough to properly execute strategies that might be imbalanced on certain maps. On the hand, what I need from a map to like it is a certain kind of comfort. It's very hard to describe, but the maps I like the best are those where I feel like at home in my base - where the map is not trying to play against me, when I don't have to keep in mind specific quirks that could cost me games. Thus I really dislike for example maps with tankable spots behind rocks, where if I don't take out the rocks pre-emptively, I might just get completely fucked later, or maps with good cannonable positions - and even though I play Zerg, I am not a big fan of maps with huge backdoors for ling runbys etc... I am not arguing for 6 bases behind a single choke here - I think that the expos need to be reasonable spread and vulnerable, but the main and nat at least need to give some advantage to the defender. As for the later expos, I like to have see bases that I want to take, not to be presented with multiple bad choices for a 4th/5th base - again, not one big fortress but a reasonable middle ground. | ||
-NegativeZero-
United States2136 Posts
| ||
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On September 04 2016 05:49 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Dasan Station+ Show Spoiler + Not actually, though my winrate on it is pretty good. MorroW gave his opinion on this a few months ago: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/507315-how-to-create-the-perfect-map-in-starcraft-2. i miss morDuck too On September 05 2016 22:55 opisska wrote: For me, the problem is that there is a big difference between a map perfect for me and perfect for high-level competition. On one hand, I understand the benefits of tournaments using the ladder map pool, on the other hand, it creates a lot of limitations on both sides. In a ladder map, I don't care that much about high-level balance, because a lot of the things just don't matter to me that much - neither I nor my opponents are good enough to properly execute strategies that might be imbalanced on certain maps. On the hand, what I need from a map to like it is a certain kind of comfort. It's very hard to describe, but the maps I like the best are those where I feel like at home in my base - where the map is not trying to play against me, when I don't have to keep in mind specific quirks that could cost me games. Thus I really dislike for example maps with tankable spots behind rocks, where if I don't take out the rocks pre-emptively, I might just get completely fucked later, or maps with good cannonable positions - and even though I play Zerg, I am not a big fan of maps with huge backdoors for ling runbys etc... I am not arguing for 6 bases behind a single choke here - I think that the expos need to be reasonable spread and vulnerable, but the main and nat at least need to give some advantage to the defender. As for the later expos, I like to have see bases that I want to take, not to be presented with multiple bad choices for a 4th/5th base - again, not one big fortress but a reasonable middle ground. Yes.. ladder maps incarnate (or fail to incarnate) this weird paradox (maps are meant for pros newbs and everyone in between). Personally i root for balancing the defender's advantage by making mains and naturals unsafe, forcing harass/pressure/scouting on the defenders prone players. i think blizzard's gameplay favors defense too much if the mains and naturals are too comfy. Again, not every map in the pool, but at least a third to half of the maps in the pool should reward attacking players (and no i did not mean cheese, just "first to engage" "harassing" etc). On September 06 2016 07:50 -NegativeZero- wrote: terraform and apotheosis are both 100% perfect i thought terraform was going to be a standard and that we would get loads of clones of it. 1/7 map in the pool should be that type of map. In my dream pool all 13 are different!+ Show Spoiler [See here] + I would say up the map pool to 13 maps and up the vetoes (add two extra vetoes) with one or two of each : 1. A rush map through topography 2 A rush map through "lack" of resources 3. A cross the bridge map (map is meant to come to a stalemate with each players controlling half) 4. A macro map where mains are invulnerable 5 A huge macro map where getting to 5 bases is easy but retaining them is not 6 A small map with "enough to go to late game" resources in the main 7 A huge map with too much resources in the main | ||
datguy
5 Posts
| ||
Clbull
United Kingdom1436 Posts
1. Deviate hugely from the 8 mineral nodes and 2 gas geysers model that Blizzard has pushed. 2. Are sufficiently large, i.e. Tal'darim Altar, Crevasse. 3. Are 4-player, because this encourages more economic play. 4. Have ramps, cliffs and chokepoints galore, because this encourages defensive play. | ||
[PkF] Wire
France24187 Posts
- beautiful - standard size, neither large nor small - rather balanced - no easy golds - (if possible) some interesting features that make it unique e.g. Overgrowth, Belshir Vestige, Terraform, Galactic Process... Terraform is probably my favorite ladder map of all time. | ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On September 11 2016 01:53 [PkF] Wire wrote: - 2 players map - beautiful - standard size, neither large nor small - rather balanced - no easy golds - (if possible) some interesting features that make it unique e.g. Overgrowth, Belshir Vestige, Terraform, Galactic Process... Terraform is probably my favorite ladder map of all time. Xel naga towers 2016 | ||
Jer99
Canada8157 Posts
| ||
Fatam
1986 Posts
- different ways to expand, preferably more than 2 possibilities if you go beyond 4 bases, so that the map can stay interesting for the whole season. Or perhaps even for a really long time. - the map doesn't strongly favor any style of play - all styles are viable (i.e. if ling/bling/muta and roach/ravager are both popular in the meta, both are viable), and more vaguely, aggression/cheese, midgame pushes or long-game macro are all very possible. - yet, despite allowing all these things, it isn't a watered-down or generic map; there are some strong, interesting features that make it very memorable. - aesthetics should be good, but don't have to be top-tier. Just enough that it's enjoyable and the aesthetics aren't distractingly bad. | ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
Also, I don't really like this "perfect" word. I think of mapmaking as akin to architecture, a blend of art and engineering (but your resources aren't nearly as limited). Has there ever been a perfect building? You see, it really depends on what it's being used for. And even then there's plenty of minutia up for debate. 1/7 map in the pool should be that type of map. Bingo! A much more useful/timeless activity would be: describe your ideal ladder/tournament/koth/etc map pool. Finally found an appropriate opportunity to re-link this TED talk: + Show Spoiler + Instead of looking for the ideal map, you should be looking for the ideal maps. | ||
Zhaie
Canada4 Posts
| ||
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On September 15 2016 03:31 Barrin wrote: New maps should both influence and be influenced by the current metagame and thus eventually become obsolete if not first overplayed. In other words, there is no such thing. Also, I don't really like this "perfect" word. I think of mapmaking as akin to architecture, a blend of art and engineering (but your resources aren't nearly as limited). Has there ever been a perfect building? You see, it really depends on what it's being used for. And even then there's plenty of minutia up for debate. Bingo! A much more useful/timeless activity would be: describe your ideal ladder/tournament/koth/etc map pool. Finally found an appropriate opportunity to re-link this TED talk: + Show Spoiler + Instead of looking for the ideal map, you should be looking for the ideal maps. i agree i tried a thread asking for a map pool for each posters.. but you know how it failed. Maybe if you did it ? Maybe a collection of the best "perfect map for me" would allow us to make such a dream pool. Thank you for all those who played / will play at lets make a dream pool! So far+ Show Spoiler + The only thing I've got for sure : Mains can't be too small mains need to have one ramp and the choke must be small in early game (always get yourself in a position to add more rocks) mains need to be protected by the border of the map or air unpathable doodads / units that make it less than 200° drop-able). Maps can be small or huge, size doesn't matter it is the way you use it, pathways must allow for all three gameplays to be showcased (but only one way in the main by foot, at least in early game). People hate straight ramps, and they will vomit if they see one. No golds other than late game expos. No change in mineral / gas disposition deviating from the declaration of independence of rts in 2010. No lone patches or longer than standard path to geysers Again, adding rocks seems acceptable on anything (mineral nodes, gas geysers, your mum, anything as long as they are standard looking and so not hide the resource underneath (maybe only the amount)). Aesthetics must be the same in a 1v1 along the symmetric paths (from the center) that lead directly to the opponent's base. These can vary but that must be along other paths that lead to resources for instance. Aesthetics may not serve to hinder layout readings from players. No teleporters (sigh). No significant changes to the map may occur during the 1v1 (lava rising / bridges being used / destroyed...etc) Bridges might be the only exception, if it is inserted in an interesting manner in the layout/gameplay of the map (the bridge(s) is the map's concept/gameplay). Creep must be able to reach at least 50% of the map from creep tumors (island type / continents type of separation is arguable, maybe if thr author is zerg and high masters (know apathy put past anarchy!). Mmmm.. the more i think about this, the more i see how much i've lost touch. From where i am sitting, all those op units make for no real gameplay issues when it comes to building a map.. blink obsolete in face of a warp prism. Quick overlod drop .. sentries wall and prism? .. mmm i don't see anything.?! i'll get back to you on that Ah yes! mmm beach maps! I think for now, maps: terraform was mentioned a lot, what else? | ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
# of maps 7 maps is pretty much the ideal amount. It allows you to have a bo7 grand final without reusing any maps. 5 is also good for smaller tournaments with a bo5 grand finals. More than 7 is kinda just too many maps to practice for, but 9 maps for a bo9 grand finals actually does a better job at finding the player who's best at SC2 in general. 7 is good. # of starting positions - 3-6 of the 7 maps should be 2p maps. The volatility of SC2 really pushes for 2p maps. - 1-3 of the 7 maps should be 4p maps. Rush distances should be long and scouting proxies should be easy. - 0-2 of the 7 maps should be 3p or 2-in-1 maps. Archetypes - 4p maps are kind of their own archetype. Frost isn't a bad example. - I always like to see an "hourglass" archetype (low circle syndrome) like shakuras plateau, daybreak, or apotheosis. 1-2 of these. - Maps that are more circular (multiple attack paths widely separated) but with rocks in the way and lack of outer bases to prevent too much CS should probably be the most common (and is the most standard), such as frozen temple, galactic process, and king sejong station. 3-4 of these is good. - "Horseshoe" or "2p close by air" archetype maps like scrap station, ulrena, and new gettysburg to encourage air play or air vs ground tension have made a place for themselves in most map pools. - Every map pool should have at least 1 map that in some way pushes the boundaries of what is generally deemed acceptable, dasan station being a fine example. Rush Distance (Size) Really 4-5 of the maps should be very standard-ish rush distances. But ~1 should be on the longer end and encourage longer macro games and ~1 should be on the shorter end to encourage faster paced games. Complexity Again 3-5 of the maps should be rather standardish in their complexity: just enough to make it interesting, but not too much to overwhelm and detract from the already complex unit interactions. I do like to see ~2 rather complex maps to really test the players; lots of ramps and chokes is the hallmark of a complex map, but it can be done other ways. There's nothing wrong with ~1 simpler map, which is usually (but doesn't have to be) the smaller, shorter rush distance map. Early Game I really like to see main/nat/third layouts that are unique (though perhaps already seen before). This goes a long way towards encouraging different play styles. At least 3 of the maps should have main/nat/third layouts that are not like any of the others. Options I really like to see options for 3rd/4th/5th bases, especially if taking a particular 3rd/4th decides the likely 5th/6th you're going to take. But not every map needs to do this. Longevity A good way to mar an otherwise good map pool is to put in a map that we've already been playing on for a year. Even if it's a really good map. Having a 1+ year old map in a map pool is a sign that mapmakers aren't making enough good maps. Due to the economic shift in LotV and certain units for which terrain should be carefully crafted (particularly the liberator), virtually none of the WoL/HotS maps cut it anymore. Balance IMO it is totally fine to have a map or two that clearly favors a certain race if that race is doing poorly otherwise. It's fine to have several imba maps in a pool as long as the pool is mostly balanced together. In fact this technique was relied upon in BW (at least) after there were no more balance updates. --- I guess you could say this is somewhat vague, but that is on purpose because I don't think creativity should be very limited. If maybe you were looking for a list of actual finished/published maps, my ideal map pool is empty; I do not think very highly of the maps that we have so far (which might be a bit unfair due to the restrictions the actual game imposes on what an ideal map can look like). I've given maps 9/10 and better because I rated them in relation to each other and what has been, but from what I think is actually possible I don't think I've seen anything better than an 8/10. | ||
Fatam
1986 Posts
A good way to mar an otherwise good map pool is to put in a map that we've already been playing on for a year. Even if it's a really good map. Having a 1+ year old map in a map pool is a sign that mapmakers aren't making enough good maps. I'd say this is hugely unfair (and probably offensive to mapmakers that have made some good LotV maps, although I doubt it was meant that way so no foul). We've had a couple hundred maps in LotV by now that pass the initial vague eye test of not being terrible, and probably 60-80 that are pretty good. Once you get to the "pretty good+" point you can't know if a map is REALLY good until it's played on, which virtually none of those maps have been. So let's set this straight, we have Frost and KSS still in the pool because Blizzard is lazy or has questionable judgment, or a mix of both. With the issues that LotV introduces for both those maps, I think it's highly probable that a good # of LotV maps would perform better. They simply haven't been given the chance by Blizzard. Every map pool should have at least 1 map that in some way pushes the boundaries of what is generally deemed acceptable, new gettysburg being a fine example. Really? I'd say New Gettysburg plays it really safe, and is a poor example. The only "risky" thing is the NFZs, but 99+% of the time they don't do anything other than annoy the players. I agree that we should have maps that push the boundaries in every pool, but I think the features on the map should be more bold and impactful. (for the record I think it's a good map in spite of the NFZs, just shouldn't count as the "experimental" map in a map pool. In reality it's farrr more standard than Ulrena was. It should stay in the horseshoe category only.) Maps that are more circular (multiple attack paths widely separated) but with rocks in the way and lack of outer bases to prevent too much CS I don't want to derail the thread into a full-on Circle Syndrome discussion, but I just thought I'd quote this because I really think CS should be revisited, perhaps in a new thread. + Show Spoiler + I agree that maps that allow frequent basetrades before the game can flesh out is a negative thing, and is something that you can call Circle Syndrome because it usually happens due to the circular nature of said map (so basically I'm agreeing with your outer path/rock point), but beyond that I think CS is rubbish. Outer late-game bases don't have negative effects. If anything, they can make things really interesting and fun. See the ridiculous # of epic games on Akilon involving those outer bases (granted, it wasn't a super CS map on the whole, but those outer bases were) And outer bases don't have to be binary (you can hold the base, or you can't) if there are other options for bases that you can take. | ||
Syphon8
Canada298 Posts
| ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
On September 17 2016 05:13 Fatam wrote: Cool post. Agree with most of it. I would quibble about a couple things though. Show nested quote + A good way to mar an otherwise good map pool is to put in a map that we've already been playing on for a year. Even if it's a really good map. Having a 1+ year old map in a map pool is a sign that mapmakers aren't making enough good maps. I'd say this is hugely unfair (and probably offensive to mapmakers that have made some good LotV maps, although I doubt it was meant that way so no foul). We've had a couple hundred maps in LotV by now that pass the initial vague eye test of not being terrible, and probably 60-80 that are pretty good. Once you get to the "pretty good+" point you can't know if a map is REALLY good until it's played on, which virtually none of those maps have been. So let's set this straight, we have Frost and KSS still in the pool because Blizzard is lazy or has questionable judgment, or a mix of both. With the issues that LotV introduces for both those maps, I think it's highly probable that a good # of LotV maps would perform better. They simply haven't been given the chance by Blizzard. Yes it can also be a sign that the people choosing the map pools aren't doing a good job, I should have put that in there too. Obviously I disagree with having Frost and KSS still in the pool, and in this case I blame Blizzard for it although I'm not familiar enough with other newer maps to pick replacements. Show nested quote + Every map pool should have at least 1 map that in some way pushes the boundaries of what is generally deemed acceptable, new gettysburg being a fine example. Really? I'd say New Gettysburg plays it really safe, and is a poor example. The only "risky" thing is the NFZs, but 99+% of the time they don't do anything other than annoy the players. I agree that we should have maps that push the boundaries in every pool, but I think the features on the map should be more bold and impactful. (for the record I think it's a good map in spite of the NFZs, just shouldn't count as the "experimental" map in a map pool. In reality it's farrr more standard than Ulrena was. It should stay in the horseshoe category only.) I definitely meant Dasan Station >.< Show nested quote + Maps that are more circular (multiple attack paths widely separated) but with rocks in the way and lack of outer bases to prevent too much CS I don't want to derail the thread into a full-on Circle Syndrome discussion, but I just thought I'd quote this because I really think CS should be revisited, perhaps in a new thread. + Show Spoiler + I agree that maps that allow frequent basetrades before the game can flesh out is a negative thing, and is something that you can call Circle Syndrome because it usually happens due to the circular nature of said map (so basically I'm agreeing with your outer path/rock point), but beyond that I think CS is rubbish. Outer late-game bases don't have negative effects. If anything, they can make things really interesting and fun. See the ridiculous # of epic games on Akilon involving those outer bases (granted, it wasn't a super CS map on the whole, but those outer bases were) And outer bases don't have to be binary (you can hold the base, or you can't) if there are other options for bases that you can take. There's really a lot more to CS than just ease of basetrades, that's just the easiest way I found to describe it (like saying that longer rush distances reduce the effectiveness of rushes and not mentioning that it also reduces the pace of the game all the way up until the last few bases are being fought over). I will say that since then I've learned to appreciate the value of bases that you are forced to fight over, but still... + Show Spoiler + The next set of proposals I spent too much brainpower this year thinking about are going to greatly alleviate CS potential (if accepted), although that's not exactly the intention (or maybe subconsciously it is, shrug). I don't want to talk about it until I finish writing about it though, so forget I said this. | ||
Fatam
1986 Posts
@Fatam not to disagree with the body of your post, but I'd say having 4 islands is much more 'risky' of a move that NG took rather than the NFZs. well it's down to 1 island per side these days which is not too weird. But when considering the original, then you are right. I definitely meant Dasan Station >.< ah ok. | ||
| ||
Next event in 1d 3h
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH164 StarCraft: Brood War• aXEnki • intothetv • Gussbus • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel • Poblha League of Legends |
Kung Fu Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs Soulkey
AfreecaTV Pro Series
Reynor vs Cure
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
|
|