|
Hi everybody. I wanted to start by saying thank you, to everyone who pressed me to improve my mapmaking skills, and voted for me this past TLMC. It was an honor to place so well in the finalists in the first place, and to win 1st and 3rd was truly out of sight for me. Congratulations to SidianTheBard, Jacky_, NegativeZero for your victories, as you are some of the best mappers alongside many others, and I'm happy to be alongside you.
Now, that we got the happiness out of the way, we need to have a serious talk about this contest, and I need to have a talk with Blizzard. I'll start from the beginning and work my way down the timeline.
It all starts at the StarCraft II Community Summit sometime last year around the end of Q3. I was able to sit down with multiple members of the balance team, including David Kim. It was there that I expressed that many of us mapmakers wanted room to experiment with bending limitations that have previously been imprinted on the mapmakers before me. This includes changing mineral line values (which was present on Bandalrog Ruins), changing the number of minerals and gas geysers (as apparent on Windwaker, Blood Boil, and Sequencer), and creating new forms of destructibles to emulate features present in the old StarCraft title, such as Stacked Temples. I was told there that we would be likely given the opportunity to change Mineral and Gas values, and it was then revealed later in a public venue this would be the case.
Fast forward a couple months, the higher end mapmakers became aware that a TLMC was "soon", especially after our distate for a single TLMC last year, and how little mapper representation there has been in LOTV for the first year. This would lead to the current map pool, with the inclusion of Abyssal Reef, Proxima, Paladino and Honorgrounds. Though without a contest, this kept us still for a short time, as we didn't feel like we were still running off TLMC7 maps (or very old maps). I had told people repeatedly that I was told (as were viewers of I believe Dreamhack Montreal?) that we would be given the ability to change minerals. So for months now, we have had this in our heads, that we would really be able to push LotV to its limits.
We were then surprised with everyone else in the SC community, that TLMC8 was suddenly announced. We all learned together that we would have very little time to work with - 11 days to be exact. For those who do not map, or know little of it, let me inform you that many of us take a long time to make our work. For example, current possible ladder map choice Blood Boil was worked over for about 2 months before being in a proper playable state. Normally, this concern would just yield mappers to pull out slightly older work to fit into the categories presented us. However, many of us saw a brick wall upon immediately reading the announcement thread. The Macro category, one which most of our maps would fit into, REQUIRED an in-base natural akin to Dusk Towers, Alterzim Stronghold, and Nimbus. So naturally, many of us panicked. For me, literally none of my maps fit this category, so I would scramble to make changes where I could (thus the inbase on Blood Boil that exists currently). We would later have this prerequisite changed out of outcry, but it would still take a day off our clock. Other changes we were concerned with were the Rush category calling for maps with a roughly 30 second rush distance, which is rather normal.
Those two aside, the biggest brick wall we felt was what came with the Experimental Resource category. Rather than all maps embracing a change in resource values, different base layouts, we saw it pushed into a category of its own. We were also told that we could include other features, like neutral blinding clouds, forcefields, and altered rock HPs alongside the experimental resources. We were later told that unfortunately, we could not increase minerals past 1500 or revert the economy back to HotS (which would be 1500 across all patches). I figured Blizzard learned from the Rush category last year, that without any real context we will produce rather poor work into what felt like a shoehorned category. And to our expectation, the experimental resource category mostly failed to produce interesting and unique applications (at least to what we saw in the finals). Blood Boil was me trying to push another Macro map into the finals without capping on the 2 macro map limit, for example. So honestly, it didn't seem like much was learned from last year. Multiple responses to this category system have been offered, but to little or no comment.
We then realized that the map tournament started less than 48 hours after the judging STARTED. To me, this was concerning, as it would give judges no time to playtest the maps before play (which was seen after many bugs being found on stream, like Blood Boil's blocked geyser). I began to expect and worry that we might have a rough start in the tournament, or lower quality maps would slip through.
All these aside, we did all submit maps on the 11th of February as due. I submitted four pieces of work and just crossed my fingers. We passed jokes over who would get their work in, mainly jokes about me getting all 4 maps in because of who I am. I spoke to at least one judge during their process to get insight on how they were handling the judging in such a short window, and I was informed that they had started judging from the moment the first map(s) were submitted. A fair strategy, and one that I hoped would not prove as destructive as I had feared before submission.
Now the tournament rolls around. Those of us who knew how to really work the editor found out what (nearly) all of the finalists were before the stream, and as expected there was some trivial drama. The real drama was what was happening behind the scenes. I thought long and hard about this, because this could potentially burn bridges I worked very hard to build, but I want to stand in the face of transparency and a better future than my bridges. It's a risk I'm willing to take. I went to bed about an hour before the KR Stream. I told TL's Monk that there is a common bug for maps that are freshly uploaded to not appear when searched in the SC2 Customs section, sometimes they persist in not showing up, sometimes they fix themselves. But, I was aware of this issue being a problem, and warned that should this happen, there is a workaround. The workaround (for those who might come across this in the future), is the one who uploads the work, can copy the Bnet link for the casters/hosters, and have them bookmark the maps. Bookmarking is key, as the bnet link does not let you directly create with an extension mod, while Bookmarking does. I gave this information knowing problems could and will happen, and tried to make sure it didn't.
I was asleep for about twenty minutes before I start seeing people @ me in the Mappers discord about Rifkin not being able to find maps. This confused me as I knew I gave the solution to Monk. I was getting messages from the judges, mappers, and I had to get up and solve it myself at the expense of sleep. I told Rifkin about the solution, and it worked, everything was fine. For the stream, I was happy to see that Windwaker and Hwangsan would be played by the higher level players, as both were ones I put heart into. Unfortunately, I was never able to really watch due to the hours it was streamed, but I did hear decent things about the entire cast. I don't really have any criticisms during the KR section. I did watch the VODs, but because they were standard maps, they were played out in relatively standard ways, and thus I didn't feel the games were too memorable. But, maybe others have different views (especially those who voted it to #1, please let me know how you felt the games were, if you remember them. The VODs are available on BTTV's YouTube!). I would later ask Monk what happened with the maps not loading, because the tournament was nearly completely canceled due to not being able to access the map. Rifkin said that they only had received the maps very shortly before they went live (to Monk's defense, as it feels like I'm painting him to look really bad, Monk worked REALLY hard the 60 some hours before they went live, so he was rightfully extremely tired). The map links they were given were locked behind the Google Doc invitation wall, and it was just too close of a call. We're lucky it was sorted out, but this should start to paint the picture of why this TLMC was just such a fucking mess. KR Tournament goes fine as far as I know.
Finalists are revealed. Nothing major here, except some mappers (like Timmay, IronMan, Meavis, others) felt they were excluded for other reasons, and that I got in based off my popularity rather than map value. Nothing abnormal, honestly. The main concern was the inclusion of the map Paradise Lost. There is a guideline in the TLMC that states:
Maps need to be ladder appropriate. This means that features requiring specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) will not be accepted. If your map passes that test and complies with the guidelines above then your map is acceptable! Of course, if you are concerned that your map may not be suitable for ladder then please PM monk and we will tell you whether or not it is appropriate.
This guideline is extremely vague. In it's most extreme form, a ladder unfriendly map could be argued as one that involves rising lava, or maybe random falling nukes every five minutes. I think the easiest way to say this as a rule is "Your map should not have features that require premeditated knowledge to play." The Sky Gate on Paradise Lost as well as the now-removed Mineral Wall are part of these. There are literal tips in game to tell you that these features extist, and it's inclusion to the finals felt like this guideline was overlooked, and the feature was the star of the map, the rest being, in my opinion, a 5 base turtle-fest. I'm glad Jacky won 4th place, as he is a talented mapper, but I was disappointed that was the piece that made it in (when I know he's made other good maps that wouldve fit).
The EU/NA tournament starts. This is where I have a bit more criticism as I was actually available. I want to say firstly that I owe so much to Rif and ZG, and BTTV as a company. But even this, I feel it's fair that I express a concern I've had since the previous contest. When you are casting a map tournament, everything you say can and will affect someones position in the polls, which is money. I would also say a Ladder Position but it seems that's completely out the window now as of the last update (and the disclaimer during the contest itself). Last year, I had extremely disliked that BTTV had spewed love for New Gettysburg during the entirety of the contest, and I have no doubt this very much helped its performance in the voting. as well as the direct Blizzard sponsorship by announcing its involvement in GSL. I understand that it's their stream, their product, their tournament, and I completely stand by them saying whatever the hell they want, because they can. I am not asking for censorship or anything, but just for BTTV to realize that they should be very careful with even the smallest of biases, even my own! I'm very happy people can look at an AVEX map and say "Hey, I know AVEX, these maps are generally pretty, high quality and vary in their ways of play." But I don't want any live cast of a tournament with my maps and others, that are up for monetary gain, to have my maps be anything but what they are. Maps. I want Windwaker to be torn apart. Tell me that the third is too wide, and that the aesthetics are not going to be the only thing that carry me to first. Tell me that I can work as hard as I want to be the most popular mapmaker, but that is not a garauntee for money. I was worried that this contest would have repeated Jacky's win with Paradise Lost, as there was much fascination with the Sky Gate, despite it barely being used, and it's beach tileset. Luckily, the effect wasn't as strong this time, so perhaps my concerns are misguided now. But I wanted to say that I had them at multiple points.
Next, it was known that Nathanias was casting the other side of the "bracket" and using the same map pool as the BaseTrade guys. I noticed while watching that Nate was having a hard time finding the maps, and I noticed it specifically on Bandalrog and Blood Boil, as it was clearly missing features. I asked nate in his chat, if he had the map list. He responded no, so I copy pasted the links that I gave Monk through Discord DM to solve the problem. I did however, message Rifkin to see if he had given Nate the list and perhaps Nate forgot. This is what I asked Rifkin:
hey
do you still have the map link list?
nate's been using a lot of the non-tlmc8 maps on strim
it might be good to like copy paste the list to him? idk
In hindsight, perhaps not the best way to present the issue. Pretty horrible, honestly. Rifkin replied with a "HUH" - as I did believe I was interrupting his cast. I clarified saying that Nate couldn't see the maps, he was using outdated versions. Here's a direct quote;
yeah he keeps trying to search tlmc8 and only sees 2 maps
hes playing on no n-tlmc paradiisa atm and just played non-tlmc bandarlog
Rifkin then replied with his last message, "idc tbh." And this really really made me angry. This is supposed to be a competition where the maps are held at their best values against eachother, and the winner, if I haven't said it enough already, has monetary gain. There is money on the line, and if there is any point that one map or another is at a disadvantage not to the fault of the Mapmaker, there is a serious problem. This is what lead me to give Nate the list of maps anyway, and the problem was then again, solved. The tourney ran smoothly from this point on. The last complaint I would have would be that we can no longer give players vetoes during these tournaments if we ever expect equal games played - but this is an issue that could be perhaps explored before the next contest, as there are many possible solutions.
Now, after the tournament, we were given about a week to make changes to our maps before the voting process began. This sounds great, normally doesn't it? But, there has not been a post-iteration tournament since 2 TLMCs ago. So any of the changes you make within the week sees no one's eyes, unless you're like me and post on twitter and TL with pictures to show for it in an obvious manner (as did others). However, that's still only showing a very minute amount of people the changes, and how many of them actually look at the changes? So, the voting comes around, and I start seeing people talking about watching the VODs to catch up and see what the maps are like. Fortunately, most maps don't see drastic changes during the iteration phase (except for last year.... but we won't talk about that), but maps like Bandalrog might have heavily suffered because the VODs just show the map mining out within the first 5 sceonds, yet the iteration heavily improved on it? I thought Bandarlog was the ONLY properly executed resource experimentation map in the 11 days we had, and I was sad to see it perform so poorly. So we have this iteration phase, with no games post-iteration, so everyone is basing their opinions on (often) outdated playing fields? It doesn't seem right, at all. The tournament, even if it has great players, is still about the maps, not about the players concerns. If, and when, the players do have concerns, they should do their part and tell the mapmakers what they like and dislike. I loved talking to people last contest, and yet I saw very little to no cooperation this time. :/
Oh boy, time for the present. Now we get to talk about what's currently happening in StarCraft II.
The Community Update for the 17th of March, 2017, explained that Blizzard is currently looking to change the map pool from this:
*(2) Abyssal Reef
*(2) Paladino Terminal
*(2) Proxima Station
(4) Honorgrounds
(4) Cactus Valley
(2) Bel'Shir Vestige
(2) Newkirk Precinct
* These maps stayed.
To adding thes:
(2) Ascension to Aiur
(2) Blood Boil
(2) Sequencer
(2) Defender's Landing.
The headscratcher here is that, we have the 2nd place map, a standard, safe macro two play map. Okay, fine. Blood Boil, a large macro map with some different expansion choices due to experimentation with mineral lines, alright. Sequencer, the fifth place winner, and then Defenders Landing. I had not recognized that name initially, but I learned it was a map that I personally gave advice to some couple of months ago in the mappers discord to an up and coming mapper YoungRustler. The map in my eyes is if Paladino Terminal and Dasan Station had a baby. It has a short yet possibly expansive middle, two entrances into the natural, the shorter end of the rush distance and is a rush map. The big question mark here is, the map never appeared in the contest to most people, myself included. I had no idea where this map came from. It wasn't in the top 5, or the finalists, so where did it come from? I found out from the TL guys that it was submitted for judging, but didn't make the cut (where it got cut, I don't know).
And yes, I know Blizzard has all right to say what maps make it in and which do not. Oftentimes when a map that won TLMC didn't make it through, it was because the map just.. didn't suit competitive play (looking at you, Biome) for it to be considered. I'm doing my best to remove my own bias, but it seems baffling to me that a relatively standard 1st and 3rd place map choice was not put into play, yet 2 rush maps were? It's no secret that a large portion of players insta-veto these Rush maps, and see very little play, except perhaps in Tournaments (and often bo7s, so they have no choice). I think by this point we've seen that players do not want rush maps on ladder. To throw away one veto on a rush map is nearly expected now, but two? You're effectively giving players just 1 veto now, with 5 maps to choose from. This seems like a really poor choice in design for play.
From the perspective of map quality, I have extreme concerns that the professional playerbase is and has been tired of less than par map pools. I don't think the professional community can take it much longer, and if the mappers lose key professional players who love to communicate, who do we go to when we want to actually push map diversity and changes? I know of a couple pro's who are just so sad at the direction that the game seems to be going in (design, or balance or maps, or any combination of these) that I think we're at a pivotal point of change that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Finally, there's one last concern. I was only recently informed about this, so perhaps this can be enlightened upon by the author, but NegativeZero's map Sequencer, which has been considered for ladder has been requested to change its Rock HPs to 2000, which is the standard value. This doesn't make much sense to me, as we were given the OK as well as encouraged to be free on our changes into the map contest, and we don't just put these values as random numbers for no reason. I'm very positive that Neg0 has specific concerns regarding his rock HPs due to their positioning around the map. It seems backwards to me that we were given freedom and we're reigning back on these f eatures.
=========================================================
TLDR:
Thank you for voting me to #1 in TLMC, I appreciate you all.
The categories in TLMC are a mess and Blizzard did not learn from last year's Rush category.
There was absolutely no time for mappers to adjust to the categories in the time we had, it gave the judges a heart attack, nearly caused the entire KR side of the tournament to collapse, made me lose sleep, and I'm not even technically supposed to be involved in the BTS! The lack of time also meant that our maps could not have been at their highest quality.
Maps should be based off their merit and not who made them, and remember that everything said on livecast can and will affect their polling results. Yes, streamers have freedom, but please just keep it in mind.
All casters and tournament organizers need to have access to the correctmaps (Blizz pls fix your search engine) - but this does tie to the extreme lack of time on everyones hands.
The guidelines of TLMC either need to be made more specific or more strictly enforced.
There need to be casted games post-iteration phase.
Players should not be vetoing the maps during the tournament.
Players do not want rush maps on ladder, do not force your playerbase to eat food they think tastes like garbage and give them the steak they voted for, and not what you found in the freezer that hasn't been seen by the cooks or waiters.
Please do not piss off your pro playerbase and make them hate the game because you want to push the maps in a direction.
All in all, most of this could be solved with more clear, concise and direct communication from and between Blizzard, TL, and BTTV. I'm sure there's alot I didn't touch on, but I'm only human and can only remember so many things that made me upset over the past month.
Thank you for reading. I will be streaming around 2PM PST tomorrow to talk further about this at twitch.tv/AVEXyli
- AVEX
 
|
The situation is indeed concerning. Defender's Landing's presence in the ladder pool is difficult to justify especially when you know it hasn't placed well with the community or the judging. It really feels like an imposed map.
What is even worst is when you compare that to past and present community-made maps such as Emerald Plaza (perhaps the most tragic story a Starcraft map has ever known) or Windwaker (which won the TLMC). forcing very "similar" specific maps in the pool isn't going to help, as pointed out in the blog. Ideally there should be one of every specific map types in the pool so that people can choose (so one Rush map, one Experimental resource map with all freedoms given including that of changing mineral patches, one map with a free natural).
The lack of time given to the contest is also extremely concerning. While time limits are healthy, it would be preferable to give mapmakers time to make new maps and have the community review them. A month at least would have been welcomed.
I am very surprised that mapmakers like Meavis didn't make the cut and am curious at what those "other reasons" are for letting them astray.
Hopefully future iterations will come swiftly and will improve on those points. There will always be time to make adjustments on maps during the ladder season, similar to what has been done with Deadwing and the platforms that used to be there.
|
Players should not be vetoing the maps during the tournament. Preach!
Also I think it's pretty funny how Blizzard asks for our thoughts on the future map pool in the community update, when we've just had a poll for it and it doesn't seem like they based too much of their decisions on it.
I think maybe they do want to add more rush maps, because people veto it in tournaments and as you say that's like forcing players to play something they don't want to.
Personally what I would like to see is the map pool be increased to 9 and have the number of vetoes remain the same or only increased by one, thereby increasing diversity in played maps and then players cannot be as picky. Also I say this because a side of me really want to see bo9 Finals especially for Blizzcon. I think if you want to increase the number of rush games, it would also be appropriate to increase the number of games played. This has been a theme in LotV. I really envy other esports and their long finals day, where the finals span over a much longer duration.
|
Well what can I say, I agree with everything you said!
I hope casters will be unbiased in the future and make sure to use the right maps. I hope Blizzard won't force rush maps into the ladder, when there are clearly better non rush maps in the contest.
From the perspective of map quality, I have extreme concerns that the professional playerbase is and has been tired of less than par map pools. I don't think the professional community can take it much longer, and if the mappers lose key professional players who love to communicate, who do we go to when we want to actually push map diversity and changes? I know of a couple pro's who are just so sad at the direction that the game seems to be going in (design, or balance or maps, or any combination of these) that I think we're at a pivotal point of change that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Very important part, pros are losing faith in the mapmaking community I think, but it's not the mapmaker's fault, it's Blizzard with their stupid regulations.
Anyway, I hope you and the other mapmakers keep up you work since it's just so important for sc2. Don't give up!
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
Thank you for posting this. It's comforting that we have such passionate and level-headed people making maps in this community. I agree with everything you said whole heartedly.
I am filled with frustation about blizzard map selection for years now. Far too often they pick gimmick 'rush' and weird maps that might seem interesting in theory but are not on a gameplay level. Making sense of their arguements and decision making when it comes to putting together map pools has proven impossible for me and many others over the years.
For someone who plays all the time (myself in past times) in reality it just yields incredible frustation and annoyance with the gameplay that these map present on a daily basis on the ladder.
Blizzard seems to not be concerned with people's ladder experience, but give more attention to the bo7 finals of a major tournament where a particular map might lead to differentiating gameplay While there are many great examples of 'different' maps done right, I feel the majority of the time it's off the mark. In tournaments it can also directly damage players. Biggest example in my memory being the 7th game between hydra and polt in 2015 on secret spring.
|
Thanks for posting these insights and congrats on getting Bloodboil on the ladder!
After all this is a community contest and I am quite happy about everyone involved, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little more communicative at times. There was a lot of feedback and I hope all parties have been listening.
|
I completely agree with everything! Thank you for posting this AVEX.
How they chose the maps seems so odd. And forcing rush maps seems is like such a bad idea considering most didnt want those. I feel like the community is disregarded.
Hopefully next TLMC and map pools will be better.
|
I have not much to add at this point in time, but i want to say thank you for taking the time writing down your thoughts on the process and making transparent what many of us map makers had to deal with in the context of this TLMC.
also cheers for the shout-out (Bandarlog Ruins)!
i just hope that in the future we will have a (community?) testing tournament of the judge's pick, iteration phase and only then a pro tournament, after there was a chance to change the maps, where needed. Also I wanted to emphasize that a stream/ tournament is of great importance for the public vote and to have a fair vote, we need to make sure all maps get properly played and be visible for a similar number of games.
|
Just from reading this thread of Avex I got infuriated with Rifkin and Blizzard as well. How can we have such an influent person in the community like Rifkin who, situation after situation, only shows he is truly someone that acts and pretends only for his (BTTV) personal advantage or gains. Unbelievable how we accept that.
Now I understand why BTTV is so hated.
Blizzard on the other hand, despite the miserable state of the game in terms of diversity and fun, comes up with even more mistakes where we would think nothing could go wrong (mapmaking).
|
United States1764 Posts
I wish every game could be played on overgrowth, but I'll never get that wish.
In my mind the map should alter tactics and gameplay as little as possible. I respect what matchmakers do (it takes a lot of hard work and understanding of the game), but in my opinion taking measures like altering mineral patch value is straight garbage. Why would someone feel the need to leave their handprint on every game that is played on their map? Again, in my opinion, it is up to the players alone to determine that.
Maps like New Gettysburg worked out relatively well because it just turned out to be a macro map because all the gimmicks turned out to be almost completely irrelevant in competitive play. Overgrowth is a fantastic because of very good base spacing, benign, but still influencial chokes as well as accessibility to all expansion and mains through a variety of attack paths. It is a great map for viewers as well as players and gives players tons of options as to how to play without forcing them to play one way or pushing them in a particular direction.
One of the main reasons maps get phased out is because people get tired of them. Once more, in my opinion, this is garbage. If a map is good, it does not get worse simply because more games are played on it. One could argue it gets better as players grow more accustomed to it (which then suggests an optimal playstyle but does not dictate it). And if a "boring" repetitive optimal playstyle was reached, wouldn't that be the perfect environment for a player to surpass another. In that situation skill alone would determine the players as the map would have almost zero affect on the outcome.
This is a very unpopular view among the Starcraft community, but it is built on 3 principles.
1. Allow the players to determine their strategies, not the map
2. To provide a place where players can excel over another through multiple viable attack paths as well as base spacing that rewards positioning
3. To be as benign as possible so strategies of many varieties can be used. The maps should be a blank canvas in that sense. Abnormal features like forcefields, excessive destructible rocks, strange mineral or gas counts, or even something like the position of the third combined with an inbase natural on Proxima Station all taint it and influence playstyle.
Like I said, I'll never get my way, but I am shocked that more don't share my opinion. All I want is the best possible games where players can do all sorts of things, but in the end the best player wins. I don't want maps where mech is stupidly good or carriers are stupidly good or a zerg would be at a large disadvatage to go roach ravager over ling/bane or visa versa versus Terran. I don't want maps where players can't rush easily (Promixa Station) just like I don't want ones where macroing is abnormally hard (Paladino Terminal).
The TLMC is a great way for mapmakers to express themselves and for the community to influence the ladder and pro play. I'd rather just have Overgrowth, though. When someone can come up with a more balanced map than that let me know.
(As a sidenote, I hope that those reading this remember that in Traditional sports the field or courts are the same in every game, no matter what. Unsurprisingly no one complains about the field or court.)
|
On March 17 2017 22:37 mizenhauer wrote:
I wish every game could be played on overgrowth, but I'll never get that wish.
In my mind the map should alter tactics and gameplay as little as possible. I respect what matchmakers do (it takes a lot of hard work and understanding of the game), but in my opinion taking measures like altering mineral patch value is straight garbage. Why would someone feel the need to leave their handprint on every game that is played on their map? Again, in my opinion, it is up to the players alone to determine that.
Maps like New Gettysburg worked out relatively well because it just turned out to be a macro map because all the gimmicks turned out to be almost completely irrelevant in competitive play. Overgrowth is a fantastic because of very good base spacing, benign, but still influencial chokes as well as accessibility to all expansion and mains through a variety of attack paths. It is a great map for viewers as well as players and gives players tons of options as to how to play without forcing them to play one way or pushing them in a particular direction.
One of the main reasons maps get phased out is because people get tired of them. Once more, in my opinion, this is garbage. If a map is good, it does not get worse simply because more games are played on it. One could argue it gets better as players grow more accustomed to it (which then suggests an optimal playstyle but does not dictate it). And if a "boring" repetitive optimal playstyle was reached, wouldn't that be the perfect environment for a player to surpass another. In that situation skill alone would determine the players as the map would have almost zero affect on the outcome.
Contrary, maps get phased out because some people just don't get tired of them and are comfortable playing on the same maps forever, and in some cases due to meta development and balance changes, maps do get worse as time goes on.
Arguably maps don't rotate enough, making the meta stale and both player and viewer experience dull.
You bring up the argument of player skill being more relevant as maps get played more, but I don't see it in such way, there are many more skills that come with RTS, one such being an inovator of strategies.
How does one display these skills when the meta is stagnant due to being arguably perfected.
This is a very unpopular view among the Starcraft community, but it is built on 3 principles.
1. Allow the players to determine their strategies, not the map
2. To provide a place where players can excel over another through multiple viable attack paths as well as base spacing that rewards positioning
3. To be as benign as possible so strategies of many varieties can be used. The maps should be a blank canvas in that sense. Abnormal features like forcefields, excessive destructible rocks, strange mineral or gas counts, or even something like the position of the third combined with an inbase natural on Proxima Station all taint it and influence playstyle.
Like I said, I'll never get my way, but I am shocked that more don't share my opinion. All I want is the best possible games where players can do all sorts of things, but in the end the best player wins. I don't want maps where mech is stupidly good or carriers are stupidly good or a zerg would be at a large disadvatage to go roach ravager over ling/bane or visa versa versus Terran. I don't want maps where players can't rush easily (Promixa Station) just like I don't want ones where macroing is abnormally hard (Paladino Terminal).
This view is far from unpopular, however it is a view that is rare amongst those who decide what eventually becomes the ladder map pool and directly following 99%+ of played games, Which is a situation that I personally find very worrisome.
The TLMC is a great way for mapmakers to express themselves and for the community to influence the ladder and pro play. I'd rather just have Overgrowth, though. When someone can come up with a more balanced map than that let me know.
I'm willing to argue that this is not the case, and that it is a bad way for the community and its mapmakers to share their vision on what starcraft maps we would like to see, case in point is your very response from which I gather you do not feel represented.
|
"NegativeZero's map Sequencer, which has been considered for ladder has been requested to change its Rock HPs to 2000, which is the standard value."
I'm all for Blizzard having final decision on the ladder pool but the way they modify maps without caring for the mapmakers choices disgusts me (galactic process anyone?).
The actual creator figured the rocks needed a different value because of their positionning on the map, are the guys at blizzard SO FULL of themselves they know standard value is better on a map they didn't make and which barely saw any competitive play? Baffling.
Oh and of course the announcement a couple weeks before the actual results is the biggest finger to the few of you who are left.
It's literally shooting yourself in the foot from blizz's perspective, it's bad for mapmakers, it doesn't give proper publicity to each map (broadcasting maps when they're a work in progress, and not once again with the final versions), which results in a worse contest (people vote for the ones who looked good before their final version), and finally leads to a worse ladder pool. Who wins? No one apart from the top 5 consolation prize.
Thank you, posts like this are so important for our game, even though blizzard switches from looking like a competent company to a bunch of amateurs on a day to day basis.
|
On March 17 2017 22:37 mizenhauer wrote:
This is a very unpopular view among the Starcraft community, but it is built on 3 principles.
1. Allow the players to determine their strategies, not the map
2. To provide a place where players can excel over another through multiple viable attack paths as well as base spacing that rewards positioning
3. To be as benign as possible so strategies of many varieties can be used. The maps should be a blank canvas in that sense. Abnormal features like forcefields, excessive destructible rocks, strange mineral or gas counts, or even something like the position of the third combined with an inbase natural on Proxima Station all taint it and influence playstyle.
Like I said, I'll never get my way, but I am shocked that more don't share my opinion. All I want is the best possible games where players can do all sorts of things, but in the end the best player wins. I don't want maps where mech is stupidly good or carriers are stupidly good or a zerg would be at a large disadvatage to go roach ravager over ling/bane or visa versa versus Terran. I don't want maps where players can't rush easily (Promixa Station) just like I don't want ones where macroing is abnormally hard (Paladino Terminal).
You're right, people like me really disagree with these statements. You're discounting terrain as a major factor in determining strategy and tactics. Why shouldn't different maps allow for different strategies? Why can't carriers be better on some maps than others? Maps allow us to exercise our mind in creating new strategies and dealing with new difficulties. A good but non-standard map shouldn't mean that carriers will always win once they arrive on the scene.
In the end, the best player is the one who can adapt to any situation. The best player won't complain that carriers are better on one map, that player won't ever let the protoss get carriers. Or will devise a strategy that inherently works towards a carrier counter.
|
United States1764 Posts
On March 18 2017 00:06 Bijan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 22:37 mizenhauer wrote:
This is a very unpopular view among the Starcraft community, but it is built on 3 principles.
1. Allow the players to determine their strategies, not the map
2. To provide a place where players can excel over another through multiple viable attack paths as well as base spacing that rewards positioning
3. To be as benign as possible so strategies of many varieties can be used. The maps should be a blank canvas in that sense. Abnormal features like forcefields, excessive destructible rocks, strange mineral or gas counts, or even something like the position of the third combined with an inbase natural on Proxima Station all taint it and influence playstyle.
Like I said, I'll never get my way, but I am shocked that more don't share my opinion. All I want is the best possible games where players can do all sorts of things, but in the end the best player wins. I don't want maps where mech is stupidly good or carriers are stupidly good or a zerg would be at a large disadvatage to go roach ravager over ling/bane or visa versa versus Terran. I don't want maps where players can't rush easily (Promixa Station) just like I don't want ones where macroing is abnormally hard (Paladino Terminal).
You're right, people like me really disagree with these statements. You're discounting terrain as a major factor in determining strategy and tactics. Why shouldn't different maps allow for different strategies? Why can't carriers be better on some maps than others? Maps allow us to exercise our mind in creating new strategies and dealing with new difficulties. A good but non-standard map shouldn't mean that carriers will always win once they arrive on the scene. In the end, the best player is the one who can adapt to any situation. The best player won't complain that carriers are better on one map, that player won't ever let the protoss get carriers. Or will devise a strategy that inherently works towards a carrier counter.
In regards to your statement concerning carriers and complaining about them. The fact that tons of pros complain about carriers completely disproves your assertion (soO complains about carriers and just 4-2'd sOs). Secondly I don't know what fairy tale world you live in, but games don't always go perfectly. Losing one too many drones to adept or oracle harass means you can't kill the protoss before they get too many carriers because your economy falls behind. You're walking a tight-rope playing against those builds because once you fall behind your window to punish them snaps shut. And don't tell me that carriers aren't worse on a map like Bel'shir vestige than they are on abbysal reef. That is the map heavily influencing how good a style is, thereby limiting the potential strategies players can use.
|
Rifkin then replied with his last message, "idc tbh."
You messaged me at 12:38 PM PST (Clarified by this screenshot) and we were in a game at the time. Being someone I valued as important, I took the time to read & reply despite casting the game at hand.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wX9cMXy.png)
I did not have the time to write, "Avex, clearly you're unaware that Nathanias finished casting his last game at 12:30 (12:28 by the screencap) PM PST, before you even messaged me, and that he was not casting in the upcoming days, so that was literally his last game. No, we won't be forcing players to replay on the 'fixed' versions of the map you've suggested, and since he's not casting any future days as clearly outlined in the Team Liquid thread, it won't ultimately matter whether he's aware of the correct map names going forward" so instead I wrote, idc tbh to make it clear it did not matter, and that I did not care as I was busy with observing/casting the game at hand.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YdM8VzQ.png)
I really care a lot about starcraft, and I really don't appreciate you opening the opportunity for trolls and morons to try to justify their hatred for rifkin (because reasons!) such as in this thread as well as already on reddit.
|
On March 18 2017 00:12 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 00:06 Bijan wrote:On March 17 2017 22:37 mizenhauer wrote:
This is a very unpopular view among the Starcraft community, but it is built on 3 principles.
1. Allow the players to determine their strategies, not the map
2. To provide a place where players can excel over another through multiple viable attack paths as well as base spacing that rewards positioning
3. To be as benign as possible so strategies of many varieties can be used. The maps should be a blank canvas in that sense. Abnormal features like forcefields, excessive destructible rocks, strange mineral or gas counts, or even something like the position of the third combined with an inbase natural on Proxima Station all taint it and influence playstyle.
Like I said, I'll never get my way, but I am shocked that more don't share my opinion. All I want is the best possible games where players can do all sorts of things, but in the end the best player wins. I don't want maps where mech is stupidly good or carriers are stupidly good or a zerg would be at a large disadvatage to go roach ravager over ling/bane or visa versa versus Terran. I don't want maps where players can't rush easily (Promixa Station) just like I don't want ones where macroing is abnormally hard (Paladino Terminal).
You're right, people like me really disagree with these statements. You're discounting terrain as a major factor in determining strategy and tactics. Why shouldn't different maps allow for different strategies? Why can't carriers be better on some maps than others? Maps allow us to exercise our mind in creating new strategies and dealing with new difficulties. A good but non-standard map shouldn't mean that carriers will always win once they arrive on the scene. In the end, the best player is the one who can adapt to any situation. The best player won't complain that carriers are better on one map, that player won't ever let the protoss get carriers. Or will devise a strategy that inherently works towards a carrier counter. In regards to your statement concerning carriers and complaining about them. The fact that tons of pros complain about carriers completely disproves your assertion (soO complains about carriers and just 4-2'd sOs). Secondly I don't know what fairy tale world you live in, but games don't always go perfectly. Losing one too many drones to adept or oracle harass means you can't kill the protoss before they get too many carriers because your economy falls behind. You're walking a tight-rope playing against those builds because once you fall behind your window to punish them snaps shut. And don't tell me that carriers aren't worse on a map like Bel'shir vestige than they are on abbysal reef. That is the map heavily influencing how good a style is, thereby limiting the potential strategies players can use.
I shouldn't have used carriers as an example, I just brought it up because it was one of your examples. Right now, people are complaining about carriers in general. Change that example to anything else, it still works.
|
On March 18 2017 00:12 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 00:06 Bijan wrote:On March 17 2017 22:37 mizenhauer wrote:
This is a very unpopular view among the Starcraft community, but it is built on 3 principles.
1. Allow the players to determine their strategies, not the map
2. To provide a place where players can excel over another through multiple viable attack paths as well as base spacing that rewards positioning
3. To be as benign as possible so strategies of many varieties can be used. The maps should be a blank canvas in that sense. Abnormal features like forcefields, excessive destructible rocks, strange mineral or gas counts, or even something like the position of the third combined with an inbase natural on Proxima Station all taint it and influence playstyle.
Like I said, I'll never get my way, but I am shocked that more don't share my opinion. All I want is the best possible games where players can do all sorts of things, but in the end the best player wins. I don't want maps where mech is stupidly good or carriers are stupidly good or a zerg would be at a large disadvatage to go roach ravager over ling/bane or visa versa versus Terran. I don't want maps where players can't rush easily (Promixa Station) just like I don't want ones where macroing is abnormally hard (Paladino Terminal).
You're right, people like me really disagree with these statements. You're discounting terrain as a major factor in determining strategy and tactics. Why shouldn't different maps allow for different strategies? Why can't carriers be better on some maps than others? Maps allow us to exercise our mind in creating new strategies and dealing with new difficulties. A good but non-standard map shouldn't mean that carriers will always win once they arrive on the scene. In the end, the best player is the one who can adapt to any situation. The best player won't complain that carriers are better on one map, that player won't ever let the protoss get carriers. Or will devise a strategy that inherently works towards a carrier counter. In regards to your statement concerning carriers and complaining about them. The fact that tons of pros complain about carriers completely disproves your assertion (soO complains about carriers and just 4-2'd sOs). Secondly I don't know what fairy tale world you live in, but games don't always go perfectly. Losing one too many drones to adept or oracle harass means you can't kill the protoss before they get too many carriers because your economy falls behind. You're walking a tight-rope playing against those builds because once you fall behind your window to punish them snaps shut. And don't tell me that carriers aren't worse on a map like Bel'shir vestige than they are on abbysal reef. That is the map heavily influencing how good a style is, thereby limiting the potential strategies players can use.
I think you make good points, but I think the big part of Starcraft and one of marks of an amazing player is being flexible. Different maps favor different playstyles and while it's true that very often certain maps favor certain builds too much a properly made non-standard map can bring fantastic games and show the full ability of a player. The best example in the current meta would be Dark in ZvT, who plays most of the ZvT styles on the highest level in the world and picks between them depending on the map (and sometimes according to opponent's build, which is also sometimes map dependant).
Map-wise, I think the best example of this would be Merry Go Round in ZvT. Initially the map was considered to be very bad for Zerg, because of the exposed 4th base, but as the players got to acccustomed to it, Zergs started shifting their builds towards aggressive timings to pressure the Terran's 3rd themselves, taking full advantage of features that were initially considered detrimental to the race.
The most memorable series are the ones when you can see both players bring 100% of their pallette of builds and abilities and I think in a healthy metagame, the best way to achieve is to promote different builds on different maps. That's actually where New Gettysburg also shone for me, map was very hard for Terran in standard TvZ, but its layout also made playing mech much easier which certain players (mostly TY really) had huge success with on the map.
On another note, similar phenomen occurs in BW. As long as you play TvZ on FS or CB, almost every game will be 3hatch muta vs 5rax, but if you bring maps like Blue Storm, HBR or Destination, you start seeing different builds from both races, as the maps allow them to be stronger than the usual meta plays.
BW also is a good analogy to how a map that used to be thought to beperfect can prove problematic as the meta develops, as seen in FS that was known as the best map, but it's considered to be heavily Terran favored nowadays.
It's true that crazy maps have no place in real competition (maybe aside of PL, where format was essentially bo1 preperation), but you don't have to clone Overgrowth to be a good map. Furthermore, to truly showcase the beauty of the game and the magnitude of the competitors, it's good to keep things different between the maps.
Just remember that it doesn't need to be Alterzim Stronghold or Steppes of War  .
|
United States1764 Posts
On March 18 2017 01:05 Bijan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 00:12 mizenhauer wrote:On March 18 2017 00:06 Bijan wrote:On March 17 2017 22:37 mizenhauer wrote:
This is a very unpopular view among the Starcraft community, but it is built on 3 principles.
1. Allow the players to determine their strategies, not the map
2. To provide a place where players can excel over another through multiple viable attack paths as well as base spacing that rewards positioning
3. To be as benign as possible so strategies of many varieties can be used. The maps should be a blank canvas in that sense. Abnormal features like forcefields, excessive destructible rocks, strange mineral or gas counts, or even something like the position of the third combined with an inbase natural on Proxima Station all taint it and influence playstyle.
Like I said, I'll never get my way, but I am shocked that more don't share my opinion. All I want is the best possible games where players can do all sorts of things, but in the end the best player wins. I don't want maps where mech is stupidly good or carriers are stupidly good or a zerg would be at a large disadvatage to go roach ravager over ling/bane or visa versa versus Terran. I don't want maps where players can't rush easily (Promixa Station) just like I don't want ones where macroing is abnormally hard (Paladino Terminal).
You're right, people like me really disagree with these statements. You're discounting terrain as a major factor in determining strategy and tactics. Why shouldn't different maps allow for different strategies? Why can't carriers be better on some maps than others? Maps allow us to exercise our mind in creating new strategies and dealing with new difficulties. A good but non-standard map shouldn't mean that carriers will always win once they arrive on the scene. In the end, the best player is the one who can adapt to any situation. The best player won't complain that carriers are better on one map, that player won't ever let the protoss get carriers. Or will devise a strategy that inherently works towards a carrier counter. In regards to your statement concerning carriers and complaining about them. The fact that tons of pros complain about carriers completely disproves your assertion (soO complains about carriers and just 4-2'd sOs). Secondly I don't know what fairy tale world you live in, but games don't always go perfectly. Losing one too many drones to adept or oracle harass means you can't kill the protoss before they get too many carriers because your economy falls behind. You're walking a tight-rope playing against those builds because once you fall behind your window to punish them snaps shut. And don't tell me that carriers aren't worse on a map like Bel'shir vestige than they are on abbysal reef. That is the map heavily influencing how good a style is, thereby limiting the potential strategies players can use. I shouldn't have used carriers as an example, I just brought it up because it was one of your examples. Right now, people are complaining about carriers in general. Change that example to anything else, it still works.
Here are some complains from just the last few months...
Hydra Range is too good, Liberators do too much damage, Mines are too strong vs Protoss, Ultralisks have too much armor, Reaper Grenade is too good, Baneling's have too much health, Blinding Cloud lasts too long and the list goes on....
I'm going to drop this point after this because it isn't relevant to the thread, but you need to realize that people complain when stuff is too good. It is difficult to adapt to beat something that is excessively strong as it takes a LONG period of time to shift a metagame. It's not good to enable strategies that are already strong to be even better by having a map in the map pool that increases its potency.
|
On March 18 2017 00:56 Rifkin wrote:You messaged me at 12:38 PM PST (Clarified by this screenshot) and we were in a game at the time. Being someone I valued as important, I took the time to read & reply despite casting the game at hand. + Show Spoiler +I did not have the time to write, "Avex, clearly you're unaware that Nathanias finished casting his last game at 12:30 (12:28 by the screencap) PM PST, before you even messaged me, and that he was not casting in the upcoming days, so that was literally his last game. No, we won't be forcing players to replay on the 'fixed' versions of the map you've suggested, and since he's not casting any future days as clearly outlined in the Team Liquid thread, it won't ultimately matter whether he's aware of the correct map names going forward" so instead I wrote, idc tbh to make it clear it did not matter, and that I did not care as I was busy with observing/casting the game at hand. + Show Spoiler +I really care a lot about starcraft, and I really don't appreciate you opening the opportunity for trolls and morons to try to justify their hatred for rifkin (because reasons!) such as in this thread as well as already on reddit.
That makes more sense. Avex's post painted you in a very poor light, glad you posted this.
|
Looks like drama is back on the menu.again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
