devtrackers.gg
Map design, along with healthy faction and unit balance, is one of the most significant factors in maintaining a robust competitive RTS ecosystem. Maps are one way in which RTS games keep matches exciting and fresh. New maps introduce features that may change the way allies or opponents interact, promote the use of a particular strategy, or diminish the effectiveness of other strategies. Builds become more or less effective depending on factors like overall size, rush distance, and starting locations. At the end of the day, maps greatly influence the competitive meta.
In the StarCraft and Warcraft franchises, maps have evolved to include certain staple features that are necessary for maintaining faction balance, such as standardized resource availability, main/natural sizes and layouts, expansion/creep distances, and so on. Certain design elements are targeted towards specific factions, such as hiding spots for Zerg Overlords, limiting Terran’s ability to build in the center of maps, and removing creeps with Frost Armor in competitive play due to its impact on Orc players.
There is a balance between introducing enjoyable changes and adding unnecessary complexity. StarCraft I and StarCraft II took two different approaches to map design. Competitive StarCraft I map pools have often included a number of less “standard'' competitive maps that promote gameplay diversity while attempting to remain balanced across factions. At the highest levels, some players choose to adapt their strategy to embrace these less standard maps, while others forgo the added complexity of adaptation in favor of attempting to quickly end the game via rush builds. StarCraft II has in some ways worked in the opposite direction, limiting the number of “oddball” maps in competitive play and keeping them somewhat tame by comparison to StarCraft I. Competitive StarCraft II has also continually trended towards exclusively two-player maps, whereas competitive StarCraft I maps commonly feature two, three, or four possible starting locations.
Different games enable map diversity in different ways. In some games, the community becomes the lifeblood of a robust map pool. Other games rely to different degrees on procedural map generation in order to keep maps fresh.
We are interested in your thoughts on competitive map design. Below are some specific questions that we would appreciate your thoughts on, but we welcome comments on aspects of competitive map design that we may have missed.
- How do you personally weigh consistency vs variability in competitive play? Should expansions and resource placement remain standardized across competitive maps, or should it vary?
- Outside of procedural generation, how can RNG be incorporated in a balanced way in competitive map design? Should the same map always incorporate the same elements, or should there be variability even in an individual map across separate matches?
- In your view, what are the best examples of neutral features in RTS maps? Destructible rocks or eggs, watchtowers, and speed auras are now commonplace in competitive StarCraft I and II maps. Warcraft III players must compete for creeps, while Company of Heroes players battle for capturable objectives. In your opinion, what are the best examples of these features?
- Across different competitive games, what has been the role of the community in the development of competitive maps?
- What lessons can be learned from Warcraft III, StarCraft I, and StarCraft II’s map pool as we move forward?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Previous Discussion Topics:
Previous Responses:
- Our Thoughts on Heroes
- Our Thoughts on Asymmetry
- Our Thoughts on Onboarding
- Our Thoughts on Teams
- Our Thoughts on Win Conditions
- Our Thoughts on Social Features