I recently finished my first map (though I'm thinking of tweaking it a little, or a lot, before it is published).
If you were given a game, such as bunker wars, zone control, (unit)arena, it's very hard as a map maker to find balance. I played a bunker wars the other day (where you can pick 3 units out of a bunch). I went zealot, collusus, marine. I killed two people, and would have easily won the game, but while I was away from my bunker, I was killed by someone who went marine/marine/marine.. I would have easily killed him in a fight, and took his bunker out.
Now while the above example is my mistake (I guess my strategy was bad?), I feel as though that should not happen.
Now the poll.
Given one of the listed game types above, to help keep balance, using 'one' unit for each player (everyone has marine, everyone has X), would you rather see:
1. Pick one:
a). Incorperate a bunch of maps into one (ie.) One 'Arena' map that has a choice (majority rule) of the unit type used (marines/ghost/marauders/etc)
b.) Individual maps for each (ie.) One map for "Marine Arena"; One map for "Ghost" Arena.
2. Why did you pick option (a) or (b).
2. I want to say if I join a game, I want to know what it is going to be. To play an Arena game with a unit you don't want to play with, can be agitating, promoting people to join and leave if they do not get what they wanted.
I did however want to vote A, because I feel as though it would be a cool map. Even if I join the same map over and over (with an expecation of a certain play style), I would get a different game each time, and my vote would help contribute to the type I'd want to see.
In response to you your example: this is what strategy is for. Look at ladder games, or even real wars. You can't just march your whole army off to one part of the map and leave your base undefended. You have to think about flanks, surprise attacks, splitting up your forces, ect. Games where you just throw armies at each other with total disregard are boring, in my opinion. This is what makes SC2 ladder so enduring - it is driven by "outside the box" thinking and strategy. Imagine a ladder game where a zerg player rushes mutalisk for a harass, and executes it so effectively on his enemy's mineral line that it wins him the game in the long run. Even though you can beat the muta with some rines or stalkers in a straight up fight, the mutalisk is used more tactically. This is how your opponent used his marines in bunker wars. You can be mad at the game or map because a player exploited your weakness. That's what SC2 is about in every sense.
I vote A.
I want to play a game where players are forced to adapt to my unique playstyle, and where mismatches of units can surprise enemies. Lack of variety is by definition boring and limits the depth of the game. It's harder to balance, yes, but balance is the responsibility of the adept map maker. If you as a map maker aren't willing to put in the effort to constantly update and tweak the game landscape, the map shouldn't be undertaken in the first place.
You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!