Ideas for PVP maps

[DrakeyC-1595]

I don’t have the skill to try making maps on my own to demonstrate these, but I think these ideas could be interesting and maybe create some unique strategies.

• A map where players start in the center of the map, divided from each other by a chasm filled with doodads that block pathing and sight (of course, it would be large enough so that Tempests and Siege Tanks couldn’t fire onto the other base). Expansion paths instead spread outward to the edges of the map, with a general curve either up or down. This would create a lot of unusual and variable attack paths and add a new dimension to where you choose to expand.
• A map where each starting base has a pocket base, but the path to it from the main base is only wide enough for workers to go through. However, there is a larger path from this pocket base that leads out into the rest of the map, creating a means by which you could open it up, or your opponent could use to get in. The isolation of the base would mean it could be very vulnerable to drops and harassment, but it could also be a place to hide tech structures from the opponent.
• A map with an odd number of bases, and the odd-one out is in the center of the map, so players will fight over it. This resource node has two rich vespene geysers and eight normal mineral fields, but they are divided with one geyser and four mineral fields on either side. This would make vespene mining very lucrative, but mineral mining would be slow and inefficient as workers weave back and forth looking for open patches. The paths to the resource node are over high ground overlooking one half of the base, so players could easily harass it, or if they seize it, choose to only mine from the side they control so the opponent can’t harass them from the high ground.
• A map with bridges over low-ground areas that are pathable, allowing units to cross over each other’s heads and attack from unusual angles. The bridges are controlled by power structures that can be destroyed to temporarily deactivate them, which would cause units currently on them to drop to the lower ground. These power structures would recover after a period of time and the bridge extend again, and the power structure in turn could be destroyed again. Players could pre-emptively deactivate bridges to close off paths before engaging an opponent’s army, or retract a bridge from under an enemy force’s feet and drop them into a pincer attack.

[Miro-11607]

@DrakeyC-1595

A map where players start in the center of the map, divided from each other by a chasm filled with doodads that block pathing and sight (of course, it would be large enough so that Tempests and Siege Tanks couldn’t fire onto the other base). Expansion paths instead spread outward to the edges of the map, with a general curve either up or down. This would create a lot of unusual and variable attack paths and add a new dimension to where you choose to expand.

While an intriguing idea in theory, in practice this doesn’t really work as you basically jump to air battles/harassment due to being close by air, or split map situations if there are air blockers separating the two mains. I could see one or two ways in which this might work, but it would likely only really be an arcade map more than anything.

@DrakeyC-1595

A map where each starting base has a pocket base, but the path to it from the main base is only wide enough for workers to go through. However, there is a larger path from this pocket base that leads out into the rest of the map, creating a means by which you could open it up, or your opponent could use to get in. The isolation of the base would mean it could be very vulnerable to drops and harassment, but it could also be a place to hide tech structures from the opponent.

Again, I don’t hate the idea in theory, but I suspect that doing it in practice would be more problematic than it’s worth, unfortunately.

Pocket bases aren’t bad per-se, but your specific description would honestly be really bad for Zerg especially, due to the nature of the larvae mechanic trapping units inside the base area.

@DrakeyC-1595

A map with an odd number of bases, and the odd-one out is in the center of the map, so players will fight over it. This resource node has two rich vespene geysers and eight normal mineral fields, but they are divided with one geyser and four mineral fields on either side. This would make vespene mining very lucrative, but mineral mining would be slow and inefficient as workers weave back and forth looking for open patches. The paths to the resource node are over high ground overlooking one half of the base, so players could easily harass it, or if they seize it, choose to only mine from the side they control so the opponent can’t harass them from the high ground.

This is called a “winner’s base”, and is generally actively avoided, because while it’s not a bad idea in theory, in practice it just really doesn’t work. One of the newly proposed maps on the PTR has something similar with two central bases, but it’s almost impossible to take either central base at all without already being super far ahead that you could probably end the game as it was.

@DrakeyC-1595

A map with bridges over low-ground areas that are pathable, allowing units to cross over each other’s heads and attack from unusual angles. The bridges are controlled by power structures that can be destroyed to temporarily deactivate them, which would cause units currently on them to drop to the lower ground. These power structures would recover after a period of time and the bridge extend again, and the power structure in turn could be destroyed again. Players could pre-emptively deactivate bridges to close off paths before engaging an opponent’s army, or retract a bridge from under an enemy force’s feet and drop them into a pincer attack.

Again, cool idea in theory. Unfortunately, in practice this just isn’t feasible due to the limitations of the engine itself. The game is an isometric game, and the engine is built in such a way that you quite literally can’t create usable bridges that allow for pathing both over and under, it just isn’t doable.

[DrakeyC-1595]

While an intriguing idea in theory, in practice this doesn’t really work as you basically jump to air battles/harassment due to being close by air, or split map situations if there are air blockers separating the two mains. I could see one or two ways in which this might work, but it would likely only really be an arcade map more than anything.

Yes, the intent was that the the pathing blockers would effect air units as well.

Again, I don’t hate the idea in theory, but I suspect that doing it in practice would be more problematic than it’s worth, unfortunately.

Pocket bases aren’t bad per-se, but your specific description would honestly be really bad for Zerg especially, due to the nature of the larvae mechanic trapping units inside the base area.

Fair point on the Zerg, I’d not considered that. Though there would again be the option for the Zerg player to open up the pocket base.

This is called a “winner’s base”, and is generally actively avoided, because while it’s not a bad idea in theory , in practice it just really doesn’t work. One of the newly proposed maps on the PTR has something similar with two central bases, but it’s almost impossible to take either central base at all without already being super far ahead that you could probably end the game as it was.

How is it that the idea doesn’t work in practice for “winner’s bases”?

As a variant idea, one could apply the concept to normal resource nodes on each player’s side - rich vespene geysers, but the mineral fields are spaced further apart then normal, maybe a tile further back as well, so that mineral mining is slowed.

Again, cool idea in theory. Unfortunately, in practice this just isn’t feasible due to the limitations of the engine itself. The game is an isometric game, and the engine is built in such a way that you quite literally can’t create usable bridges that allow for pathing both over and under, it just isn’t doable.

Really, even with the 3D engine? I know that there’s bridges that can retract and extend, but it’s impossible to have units path under them? That’s both surprising and disappointing.

[Miro-11607]

@DrakeyC-1595

Really, even with the 3D engine? I know that there’s bridges that can retract and extend, but it’s impossible to have units path under them? That’s both surprising and disappointing.

Despite being visually 3D, the game’s engine doesn’t actually run in 3D, rather in 2.5D.

@DrakeyC-1595

How is it that the idea doesn’t work in practice for “winner’s bases”?

Because you can literally never actually take them unless you’re so far ahead you’ve already won the game anyway, as I understand it; it’s a concept one of my map maker friends has talked about a lot, actually.