broodwarmaps.net banner

BWMN Time
03/29/2024
13:52
News
new account
list users
Login:
name:
:PW.:
Replays
Map DB
ICCup
Map Access
New map
Edit map
 



Forum - main
Map Theory
page: 1
http://www.panschk.de/mappage/comments.php?mapid=3300

While studying this map of Morrow, and writing down everything that came to my mind, I think I made some discoveries and/or important conclusions on map theory, and why the pros are so damn good at making maps.

The post I made there (the first one I made) is incredibly long and does not have many paragraph breaks, so it might be hard to read. If it's too hard, I'll try and digest what I wrote and rewrite the important things later in an easier-to-read format.

So if you can, please read the whole post, but I'll try and summarize my points here.

I thought about why Python and Othello work so well, and decided it was because of a balance of features.
Othello I said works well because:
It has very good distances between expos.
But having such expo distances takes up map space, making the map fairly tight.
So, all expos are very harassable by cliff, and also by alternate route attack.
Fitting harass stuff, plus these distances, alone would normally make the map too tight.
Result: The nats are somewhat awkward and tight. You are forced to rally to your 3rd base, like in Bluestorm, but that's ok because you will naturally take this base pretty soon in many scenarios.
To compensate, the main has a funny shape as well as the nat, and the nat pathing leads diagnally into the center, not horizontally or vertically.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is actually pretty rare and significant for a (4)map with a normal nat. The placement of the main and nat, the expo layout, the distance from nat to 3rd, from 3rd to min only, the location of the cliffs, how the pathing works, how flanking works, it all just complements every facet and feature of the map really well. What's so brilliant about this, is that I have no idea what causes what. I mean, where did they start with the concept? Couldn't have started with the mains or nats, because they only work with the cliffs and pathing. Couldn't have started with the expo layout, because it only makes sense given the main/nat placement/position/orientation. Couldn't have started with pathing, because that only makes sense given the expo layout. I just don't understand how this map was created, but it seems like it takes nothing short of genius lol.

Now for Python, I said that Python works because:
Python has a huge middle. This usually favours the mobile race because of flanking. Then, the expos are spread out far. This usually also favours the mobile race, because they can better be all over the map, and better prevent the other from expoing as such. The expos are almost unharassable. This usually favours the non-mobile race, as harass is usually made to weaken the non-mobile race, who usually cannot be everywhere at once. Now, a very open middle tends to encourage turtling because of flanks being strong. This is because turtling tends to favour the non-mobile race. But, turtling doesn't work as well if the expo layout is so spread. Now the expos normally are not very harassable through cliffing or drops, but they end up being more harassable by land due to the massive distances caused by the spread expo layout and the wide middle. Turtling is harder, so the non-mobile race must focus on being mobile, focus on harass basically. The spread expo layout and large middle are actually so wide that they stress the mobility of the mobile race. This means both races can in a sense be mobile. The lack of turtling combined with the large middle where you can easily run away support this. As such, expoing is possible if the mobile race does some turtling and the non-mobile race is more mobile. Of course, the distance between expos makes defending your stuff from one location harder, but the large middle makes flanks and maneuvering much easier than normal. Basically, the blend of features here balances out aspects of mobility normally "assigned" to each race in each matchup. As such, it balances out the various aspects of the map (if the players play correctly), and makes for more exciting games potentially, where the races are forced or atleast encouraged to act more uncharacteristically. Shortening distances would strongly favour the non-mobile race, requiring much more harassable expos. Shrinking the middle would return the matchups to more conventional racial statutes, as well as hurting balance. Also the islands help with balance, a well as adding more variety and strategy to the map in general. If you changed anything really, you'd have to change other things, and the end result would likely not be as balanced.

Conclusions: The most important things to consider when executing map concepts are expo distance, pathing, harassability, and moving-room. This inherently includes base sizes and shapes, and the position and location of minerals and chokes.
The most important things to consider when forming map concepts are strategical variety, keeping many options open. The difficulty though is not in making a unique concept, but in making a concept which is complemented by proper execution styles and trends. Anyone can sit down and think of a brilliant idea for a map, but it's throwing it together that's the difficulty. Thus, part of the concept must innately include how the concept will be executed.

Most of you already know these basics. Most of you can make properly sized mains, nats, expo. Most of you can place the correct amount of expos. Most of you can have correct distances, proper choke size, proper choke location, adequete alocation of space for movement vs expos. Most of you understand how to compensate for this imbalance or that imbalance to create balance. Most of you can understand A + B = C, where A and B are features and C is the resulting gameplay. Most of you understand the relationship between modifying A and B and how that effects C. Slight differences in just A will cause large differences most of the time in C. Most of you also understand how to keep the desired C value, you must modify both A and B, since those two features balance/counter eachother to create a working gameplay. What I think some of you miss is how a map isn't made of A + B = C. Every map is made of A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I + J..etc = Final product. Every little detail effects every other little detail in a map. Creating the perfect map is theoretically possible I'd say, but is improbable because of Human error, and because of the limitations of the editor and the available space. Consider Othello, which I praised so much for having fit together each concept so well. It's definitely not perfect. It doesn't have perfect balance. The mains feel awkward. The nats feel awkward. Moving and flanking can feel unnatural if you're used to other maps. The point is that though in the end, while it's not perfect, the map works really well. The compromise was a loss in some comfort, but nearly to a negligible degree. This is key here.
I feel that a lot of you make poor compromises. The biggest clue on if you're doing the right thing is in the use of map space. You have to be worried about using all 128x128 space. You have to worry that, if you use too much space for the mains or nats that you won't have as much room for another expo. If you use too much room for the center, you won't have enough room for proper distances between expos. Sure you can clump expos, but that can be uncomfortable, and lead to imbalances and/or flaws in gameplay. If you open a map, and something feels wrong, or awkward, it's probably because it's bad. Often editing a map is a lot more than making slight modifications. Most maps probably need atleast one complete make-over from scratch, if not more than one. It takes a lot of trial and error, a lot of experimentation. A lot of guess and check lol. The most important thing is to be true to your concept. Try not to cling to unimportant things, like main shape and size, expo distances, etc. A critical error in mapping is giving up, or deciding that the time and effort you put in making this particular map/version is worth more than the final product of the map. If there's an error, you probably can't fix it with small edits, you probably have to reshape, resize, reposition, relocate, and reorient a lot, if not everything. The time and effort you put into making the flawed first version actually goes to waste if you don't put more time/effort into seemingly undoing your work by redoing things. Making the first version is just your first experiment. It's important to post that first beta on bwm even if it's probably shit, because we're human and need to bounce ideas off everyone else, see where they think your map is going, and where they think it should go. That beta version isn't the final product. Slight modifications and compensations on that beta are usually inappropriate; they just put aside the real problem and try to compensate for things by sacrificing something else. Often saving your concept means throwing away all your execution, and using the knowledge of what was wrong and why it was wrong to re-execute the concept.
Modifying usually means sacrificing concept for execution. Remaking the map saves the concept, but dumps the execution. A map with no concept is no map at all. However, a map with no execution has no concept. To be truly great, a map needs a good concept and good execution. Many maps here have great concepts, but are flawed by their execution. Or the opposite, where the author focused on execution, and just made a really simple/basic/standard map which doesn't stand out on its own. Both are good for basics practicing, but then you need to stop working on one or the other, and combine great execution with a great concept.

Another thing I concluded through all this thinking, is that one of the ways you can properly execute a concept, is in twisting things. Consider the maps Othello, Wuthering Heights, Byzantium, and to a lesser degree Return of the King, Bluestorm, and Colosseum. These maps all make really great use of the available space. There basically is no wasted space in these maps. They fit huge concepts into 128x128 or 128x96 by twisting things. By twisting, I mean removing straight lines. Removing linearity. Straight lines have always been tabboo here at bwm, but there's more to it than visuals, it actually has some underlying real value. These maps have things moved into non-standard locations. They aren't limited by going up or down, or left or right, or directly diagonal. They blend all of these to properly use the space.
Othello: Mains and nats are in non-standard locations. They're in the corners yes, but the mains open up close to the map edge, with the nat pathing leading directly towards the center. The pathing however diverges immediately to the sides, away from the center, but pathing realigns itself around the center later on.
Wuthering Heights: Very simple/standard main/nat/min only placement. Note that the main opens away from the middle, and then the nat opens towards the middle. The main/nat/min only layout though is so simple that it takes up a lot of space, so much that there's no room for a 3rd gas base along normal pathing. Then, given this pathing and the wide middle, some of you try and throw away rotational symmetry and just form some normal symmetry with expos in the middle, but facing away, and closer to the sides, etc, but this map hangs on to its rotational symmetry, and literally twists the center into a swastica-looking shape. It takes normal cross pathing, and twists it, literally twisting the cross formation itself creating the swastica shaped middle. The expos then are where you might have placed them, but the pathing warps around them with rotational symmetry that works really nicely. The end result is an expo layout which has focuses both on the center and the sides, a blend which in this map works really well.
Byzantium: The expos are actually not placed along normal pathing, but along abstract, imaginary pathing lines which are solidified by the expos' presences, resulting in a normal center focused map, with very important alternate paths, with the expos making the emphasis on the sides, while still requiring the use of the middle for general pathing. Also note the twisting of pathing from the mains to the nats to the center, more radically so than in Othello. The main opens up to the main towards the map edge, not the center, and then the nat pathing opens towards the center. This back and forth nature, going one direction and then another, it's tricky to implement properly, but it's this business of "twisting" that I'm talking about.
Return of the King: Expos are along a different line of pathing than the general pathing, which leads through the middle.
Bluestorm: Very linear, but has a very unique pathing setup which branches several times, but then converges into the general pathing which aims towards the middle. The main and nat both open up towards the middle but the tight path redirects pathing, which then is split at the min only, and then the two paths converge, and then split again as the path approaches the middle again around the 12/6 expos, and fully converges with all other flying in the center towards the center, with its general linearity putting a big emphasis on the middle, but with the focus on the sides through the expos, but this is brilliantly executed with its diverging pathing which isn't too open or too tight in any spot, it's just right. It's the high probability of having a split map setup which can give the map boring gameplay, otherwise the map would be very lively.
Colosseum: Main opens towards the center, but it also opens up away from the middle, with its funny nat placement. Then, the 3rd gas goes in the opposite direction from the nat, and still away from the middle. The min only follows the line of pathing leading from the 3rd gas, as well as leading from the middle towards the bases, converging pathing between the opposing expo pathing and general middle pathing.

I want to point out that this business of having general pathing through the middle with twisted pathing oriented with the expos on the sides, is a modern trend in (4)maps, but not the only way to do it. Rush Hour III's general pathing is along the sides, with the alternate/twisted pathing going through the middle. Having general and twisted pathing though is greater than a trend, it's just a fundamental of modern mapping. You see it in (2)Maps, (4)maps, and to a usually somewhat different degree in (3)maps.

Modifying pathing is important in getting your expo layout to work with your map layout, and moving/rotating/resizing/reshaping bases is a fundamental facet of modifying pathing.
2008, 10, 25 08:30
Oh, and I want to add that you should be careful to not disrupt main2main and/or nat2nat and/or main2nat distances by "twisting" things.

Many of trcc's maps are good examples of twisting things.
2008, 10, 25 08:32
lol the post on Morrow's map + this almost = 5000 words.
2008, 10, 25 08:34
good job - mapping 101
2008, 10, 25 09:48
thx
2008, 10, 25 14:05
page: 1

Reply:


You have to be logged in to post
random map
  (0)Jungle Ruins R..
Newest updates:
  (2)Dusk_0.60
  (4)Blustercrux_0.60
  (4)Daedalus_0.60
  (4)Aquamarine_0.60
  (2v6)Rich vs Lean
  (3)Ra 0.66
  (2)Dark_Swamp_0.60
  (2)Tess_Chapter_0..
  (4)Vhansoon_0.60
  (2)Arcane_Magic_R..
MOTM
  • month 6:
      (2)Butter 2.0b
  • MOTW
  • week 2021.01:
      (3) Lambda 1.0
  • Main Forum
  • New B..(Kroznade)
  • Magna..(addressee)
  • No Fo..(Pension)
  • Share..(Shade)R)
  • Feedback
  • This s..(triller1)
  • Rotati..(triller1)
  • Off Topic
  • scm dr..(addressee)
  • Real L..(Pension)
  • Vetera..(ProTosS4Ev)
  • Starcraft 2
  • announ..(triller1)
  • STARCR..(triller1)
  • Search Forum
    Articles:
     
  • How to make larvae spawn at the bottom right corner  
  • Worker pathing guide - How to debug and balance resour  
  • An elegant way of dealing with cliff asymmetry
  • Competition:
     
  • Innovative Naturals Competition  
  • Tourney Map Pack Aspirant Suggestions  
  • Maps That Need A Remake  
  • Think Quick Map Contest ($100 prize)