Did Blizzard forsee modern ZvP? Macro maps + more

Maps as balance, past and future

Pool, Hatch, Hatch. You might call it standard ZvP these days. The timings are clear and crisp, the plan is both safe and greedy. It leaves us many options and few vulnerabilities. Why did it take us so long to find it? Well, Let's go back in time a little bit. Perhaps a year ago or so, the various web communities were utterly saturated with pictures like this:

Dustin's Trollface
[image loading]

y u mad tho? I think our map pool ROCKS

As far as Blizzard was concerned, we didn't need macro maps. If the maps were too big, people would just hide expansions everywhere and the poor low level players would never have fair games. Furthermore, without rocks, It would be too easy to expand and expand without ever making an army. Close spawns had to exist so that players could enjoy a "variety of playstyles". Blizzard felt that without their guiding hand, we would play their game wrong. To quote Dustin Browder from an interview with coL.CatZ,

"We make our map pools for the ladder, for ladder players. There are players who like to rush, there are players who like to macro, We do have a system where you can veto maps you don't want to play on.. But I think we're starting to see a lot of the tournament players making these VERY complicated maps, with a LOT of expansions. This is not going to work for a lot our ladder players. A lot of our ladder players are going to fail to scout a lot of those extra expansions - and then its all about hidden expansions. Which is not appropriate - it's not a fun game. So we do want to have a mix of maps. We don't feel like what happens in tournament is appropriate for ladder, and what happens on ladder is not appropriate for tournaments, and we're very comfortable with two separate types of pools happening there. And we're gonna continue with that until we're convinced otherwise."

Oh, how far we've come. It's hard to imagine such blasphemous words being uttered today, isn't it? Yet a year ago, that's where we were. And we hated Blizzard for it. The community reached out every chance it got to tell them - Fix the maps! We asked in live interviews, we asked through online Q&As, even Nestea had some choice words about the map pool at Blizzcon. Eventually they were convinced and we all breathed a sigh of relief, and today we have "tournament-style" maps in our ladder pool. And for that, Zerg players are especially thankful. Modern zerg styles would be nearly impossible on a map like Slag Pits (In fact, my solution for that map was 1base baneling all-ins in all matchups).

The Past
[image loading]

there were so many bad maps, i couldn't even veto this one

The few maps today that block the 3rd with rocks, I veto, and I'm sure many zerg players do. And I'll be honest, ZvP is my favorite matchup right now.... I just ROACH my way through pretty much whatever the protoss player does and it feels good. Perhaps, a little TOO good. What if it was never supposed to be this easy? With all the changes in balance and maps, Zerg finally has enough breathing room to macro up - to be fair, the other races do too, but Zerg always has the ability to "one up" the other races in terms of economic growth. We scout you, figure out how many drones we can get away with, and then try to overrun you. Was it Blizzard's intent to stifle that economic growth, for the sake of balance? Is the game still balanced with that growth running unchecked? As we move into Season 7 with even larger macro maps like Daybreak, How will the metagame be affected?

For answers to these questions we simply have to wait and see - The majority of us aren't qualified to make definitive statements on the matter. My gut feeling is that we the gamers collectively can solve almost any problem without Blizzard's help, even if it takes us thousands of hours played to eventually have an epiphany. When that epiphany arrives to one man and he shows the world, the rest of us will integrate it into our play overnight. Although, Stephano's recent comments have rustled the jimmies of many players out there, protoss and zerg alike:

Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think.

He's at least partially right, and speaks with authority, since he very well could take credit for our "Standard ZvP", Pool hatch hatch. So long as you scout a protoss fast expand build of some sort, it's the go-to build, and simply adjust the quantities of lings, roaches and queens to fit what your opponent is doing. Then again, racial win rates are still pretty close, although slightly Zerg favored in ZvP. Right now it doesn't happen in ZvT, although a variant of it may come into play on Daybreak if terrans start doing no-gas expands more than hellion openings. And on these larger maps, ZvZ might finally become a macro-oriented matchup instead of the "chaotic knife fights" we're used to seeing. If Daybreak goes over well, we might end up with a ladder map pool FULL of giant GSL macro maps. That would be great.... Or would it?

How will things unfold now that the community has a say in the maps on which we play, and will the game need more balance adjustments to compensate?

The future
[image loading]

Poll: How will larger macro maps affect the game?

Good for the game overall (583)

56%

Too good for Zerg, zerg imba (365)

35%

Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports (40)

4%

Good for Z and T, sucks for P (22)

2%

Proxy cheese, Proxy cheese everywhere (13)

1%

Too good for T/P (11)

1%

Other Considerations(lower leagues, etc) (10)

1%

1044 total votes

Your vote: How will larger macro maps affect the game?

(Vote): Good for the game overall
(Vote): Too good for Zerg, zerg imba
(Vote): Too good for T/P
(Vote): Good for Z and T, sucks for P
(Vote): Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports
(Vote): Proxy cheese, Proxy cheese everywhere
(Vote): Other Considerations(lower leagues, etc)

PS: Before you respond, realize no statements are made in this OP. I'm asking, not telling.
If you'd like to vote for something other than what's on the poll, it can't be changed, sorry

just click "other" and explain why in the thread!

Further study
For a more in depth, number oriented read about maps as balance, and how economy can affect the matchups, head on over to The Breadth of Gameplay in SC2

Last edit: 2012-03-19 23:53:32

darkscream Canada. March 19 2012 18:27. Posts 2107

Profile Blog #

Last edit: 2012-03-19 23:21:42

FabledIntegral United States. March 19 2012 18:30. Posts 8357

Profile Blog #

Daybreak is an excellent map. It's really not THAT big. Allins are still very viable on that map, and hey, look, hidden expansions AREN'T really viable on the map (you might take a base quicker than usual and make it hidden that way, but so easy to check...).

I also don't think Protoss has to do the same thing everygame. Of course, my Zerg is nowhere near as good as Stephanos, but as a random player who has a better PvZ than ZvP, I don't have any issues at all with that mass roach style as Protoss.

However, every Protoss out there seems to like to forge FE. I personally 2gate FE, with the 2gates at the natural. Change of pace, significantly more fun, and working quite well for me. The main main advantage of the build is you can't get roach/ling allined without knowing far ahead of time, and since I follow the FE up with a stargate, if they delay too long, I'll have a voidray up. PvZ used to be one of my worst MUs since I couldn't fight off a roach ling allin whatsoever.

NaZa March 19 2012 18:32. Posts 963

Profile Blog #

So many old maps were so broken.I'm glad blizz smartened up and started to put in good maps.

Where do whores go?

Manit0u Poland. March 19 2012 18:38. Posts 9847

Profile Blog #

On March 19 2012 18:21 darkscream wrote:
The future
[image loading]

Is that the SC2 version of Nostalgia?

[image loading]

Last edit: 2012-03-19 18:42:16

Time is precious. Waste it wisely.

parkin March 19 2012 18:44. Posts 861

Profile Blog #

Big maps are good. But most importantly maps without goddamn rocks and gold expansions everywhere.

mostly harmless

Exigaet Canada. March 19 2012 18:50. Posts 319

Profile #

On March 19 2012 18:38 Manit0u wrote:

Show nested quote +

Is that the SC2 version of Nostalgia?

[image loading]

The layout is more similar to Match Point.

[image loading]

QuothTheRaven United States. March 19 2012 18:56. Posts 5512

Profile #

The shitty ladder map pool was the primary reason why I stopped playing this game. Even if good games were happening in tournaments, I could never play good games myself, and it just got too frustrating waiting months for Blizzard to remove Steppes of War and Jungle Basin. By now they've improved the ladder map pool dramatically, but it's too late for me, as I've already lost interest in playing the game myself. I'm sure there are many others in the same boat.

The larger maps have proven themselves to be relatively balanced for competitive play. If they prove to be heavily imbalanced at lower levels, that doesn't really matter, except that it would probably prompt Blizzard to remove the maps from the ladder pool, which would be a real tragedy.

Last edit: 2012-03-19 18:57:52

. . . nevermore

Naphal Germany. March 19 2012 18:59. Posts 1223

Profile #

i do not even veto anymore, maps seem good enough now!

Areon United States. March 19 2012 19:02. Posts 270

Profile #

Funny thing about this topic, I remember when I first started watching Koreans play in casts by Husky Starcraft or whoever, the biggest thing I noticed is that the players were always up in each others faces with almost non-stop aggression of some sort at the start of the game, for all races. Can't tell if it's the metagame or maps or both, but that isn't always the case so much anymore. If we get to the point where maps keep getting bigger and bigger it might gradually make esports less exciting, but then again with the birth of Barcrafting SC2 will always be pretty popular in general. I just think it'd be interesting to see less of maps that keep getting larger and larger and more maps that are relatively smaller but where skilled players can use positioning, timings or tactics or some other facet of expertise to keep pressure on and create some exciting games. Or maybe I'm just crazy. Point is, please don't keep making maps much bigger than they already are!

Last edit: 2012-03-19 19:02:43

Pr0wler Bulgaria. March 19 2012 19:11. Posts 397

Profile #

Big maps are good but to some extend. For instance Calm before the storm is one of the worst maps ever played on GSL and it's not surprise that they dropped it after just one season. IMO there shouldn't be bigger maps than Tal'Darim Altar.

darkscream Canada. March 19 2012 19:12. Posts 2107

Profile Blog #

On March 19 2012 19:11 Pr0wler wrote:
Big maps are good but to some extend. For instance Calm before the storm is one of the worst maps ever played on GSL and it's not surprise that they dropped it after just one season. IMO there shouldn't be bigger maps than Tal'Darim Altar.

Calm Before the Storm is still played in GSTL, though.

DeathAngel[ro] Romania. March 19 2012 19:13. Posts 79

Profile #

zvp nowdays is exactly like zvp in sc1 (atleast the start pool hatch hatch vs nexus forge etc. or forge nexus etc.)

a very funny zerg player

Ryndika Finland. March 19 2012 19:13. Posts 970

Profile Blog #

Larger maps means more bases for zerg not necessarily for protoss. Unless we get something that allows us to REALLY leave our base. It's bich to defend 4bases already and needs about 50cannon. Watching MC play PvZ it's just his 4th gets sniped all the time with like infested terrans requiring no resource. Even when there is 8cannons and HT.
That game in entombed valley showed that zerg could mine about 3extra bases against MC and with all of those resources make only spines/spores on middle of map.

I'm not otaku. | Ratatat | Depeche Mode | Love haypro/Huk <<3<3

AxUU Finland. March 19 2012 19:16. Posts 116

Profile Blog #

I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made.

（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

JackDragon March 19 2012 19:29. Posts 393

Profile #

Blizzard did not forsee it no. Blizzard have statet many times that they don't think that far ahead with balance. They do check how the units fare against each other but when it comes to map or strategy balance they don't know beforehand. So no I don't think they crippled economy for the sake of balance. But more that they crippled economy because they didn't know better.

Zrana United Kingdom. March 19 2012 19:47. Posts 674

Profile Blog #

I think people are overlooking that protoss on 3 or 4 bases has basically won the game, unless you can get hive tech before he gets to your front door, and then the game goes on (and becomes a weird scenario in which the gameplay now completely revolves around stopping vortex - but that's another matter).

Bigger maps also means it's a little further for zerg to take out the toss 3rd, which basically is the aim of the game for most styles.

Ooshmagoosh United States. March 19 2012 19:50. Posts 411

Profile #

No, I don't think Blizzard really expected anything at all. When they made Starcraft 2, they had set out to make a better Starcraft, without knowing anything about how their game worked at the highest levels. They simply picked out random things and replaced them with shiny junk, and the end result is the gunk you see here.

Take a look at BW and SC2 zvp: Protoss uses cannons to take their natural early, because they have found pressure at low tech with little gas to be ineffective for them. Zerg double expands in response, because toss can't attack for awhile.

Blizzard then widens the naturals and sticks rocks at every viable third.

Protoss uses zealots / stargate units to keep zerg's economy in check while either taking a third or teching to templar / getting goon range.

Blizzard gives Zerg a 150 mineral unit that costs no larvae, shoots up, and can use energy to spawn a massive amount of larvae from hatcheries. They then replace the Hydralisk with a unit that does full damage to all targets, and has 1 armor and 145 hp. Also, they throw another 50 minerals / 50 gas onto the cost of zealot speed.

See where I'm going here? I really don't think they would have thought to design their maps to compensate for these changes, either. (I know strategies weren't intended to be copied to the letter like this, but the game as a whole wasn't really changed THAT drastically. The same themes apply in most matchups, and ZvP was balanced on a razor-wire to begin with)

Last edit: 2012-03-19 20:10:51

"There should be no tying a sharp, hard object to your cock like it has a mechanical arm and hitting it with the object or using your cockring to crack the egg. No cyborg penises allowed. 100% flesh only." - semioldguy

Reyis Pitcairn. March 19 2012 19:53. Posts 265

Profile #

"Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports"

기적의 혁명가 김택용 화이팅~!!

Megakenny Canada. March 19 2012 19:56. Posts 790

Profile Blog #

On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote:
I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made.

Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder.