On May 31 2016 15:14 Bakuryu wrote: if possible i would like the map to be changed like this in order to get more variation can you ask ragnarok what he thinks of it?
I've posted this already, but how any of you can say this is a terran map?
This map has an extremely difficult 3rd to be taken, 2 ramps to natural (denies rax FE), a lot of high ground that makes it super difficult to push, huge main that is difficult to be covered with turrets.
All in all, this map will be a 2 base madness with huge amount of early game cheeses (you can build proxys everywhere). Only thing that I find OK for terran on that map is harassment potential both for vultures and drops.
Also vs Z early game survival would be a problem (unless you cheese)
That natural is super difficult to take I guess. With two entrances open right from the start I dont see how P or T can fast expand against Z on this map.
And I bet there will be lots of proxies on that ridge behind the main.
On May 31 2016 17:48 kogeT wrote: I've posted this already, but how any of you can say this is a terran map?
This map has an extremely difficult 3rd to be taken, 2 ramps to natural (denies rax FE), a lot of high ground that makes it super difficult to push, huge main that is difficult to be covered with turrets.
All in all, this map will be a 2 base madness with huge amount of early game cheeses (you can build proxys everywhere). Only thing that I find OK for terran on that map is harassment potential both for vultures and drops.
Also vs Z early game survival would be a problem (unless you cheese)
every single map ever since the dawn of starcraft has looked 'like a terran map' because they see high ground and think tanks.
My first thoughts are this map can be only favorable for terran if match gets into late game. Pros should already start to play hell of it instead of FS. Terran players watch out Flash he will show how to 200/200 push.
On May 31 2016 15:14 Bakuryu wrote: if possible i would like the map to be changed like this in order to get more variation can you ask ragnarok what he thinks of it?
It will make the map symmetric just like blue storm and provide painful game to play and watch once the map has been split, heavily terran favored.
On May 31 2016 17:48 kogeT wrote: I've posted this already, but how any of you can say this is a terran map?
This map has an extremely difficult 3rd to be taken, 2 ramps to natural (denies rax FE), a lot of high ground that makes it super difficult to push, huge main that is difficult to be covered with turrets.
All in all, this map will be a 2 base madness with huge amount of early game cheeses (you can build proxys everywhere). Only thing that I find OK for terran on that map is harassment potential both for vultures and drops.
Also vs Z early game survival would be a problem (unless you cheese)
every single map ever since the dawn of starcraft has looked 'like a terran map' because they see high ground and think tanks.
It's more like narrow paths and cliffable main and nat that make it look hard. Terran has to worry about a backdoor attack in the early game though, so maybe it's some compensation. Also Terran in general do badly outside of a professional practice environment, so maybe they need the boost (except for Flash of course).
I like this person's maps a lot usually, but this one actually looks quite amateur. Maybe there is some refinement that will happen. There's at least multiple paths for players to circumvent the Terran blob, so it's not that bad. Muta harass can be quite strong on these maps too, although I'm really thinking of TvP balance. Zerg might have a really difficult time stopping a quick m&m push since they have to cover two chokes just for their natural.
Well, there are mining bugs in both mains and the top natural. Tells you everything you need to know about the amount of prior testing that went into this @_@ Actually just looking at the two-minute deco job tells a lot of how much any one cared to actually provide a thought-out high-quality map...
From the potential cheesy map abuse. this comparable to Bifrost, which equals more than a decade of regress in the evolution of maps.
Balance is any ones guess, but my bet is its terrible
On May 31 2016 19:07 LaStScan wrote: P>Z P>T Z>T
End of my speech
Maybe you see something different from me, but I don't really agree with any of these.
First of, has any one who does not see this as a Terran map considered that Terran can just easily take four bases through the backdoor at the left side? Most of the map is buildable, nat to nat distance is short, there are abusable cliffs all around the nat and the ridge in front of the nat, together with these other features, means terran can easily set up a contain there (well, at least it is only a semi-contain, as three entrances into the main/nat area mean one can at least sneak out through the backdoor). Also looks like a terrific map for all sorts of Vulture harassment. Maps with backdoor to the natural, especially with an open backdoor like this, have always been notoriously Z>P. I don't see how this would be the exception. It's not that taking a 3rd and 4th would be hard as Zerg, either.
Can we agree on that the base at 3 o clock is extremly hard to take for any race, because its very open? At the same time, base at 9 o clock is also very open, but considering how close it is to both long ramp expos, this looks pretty doable. But first, lets look at the map in total to determine where we should expand. If we split the map in half and remove main/nat, we can see that the left side of the map has 5 bases to take, while the right side has 3 bases. This means if you manage to occupy the left side, you already have access to more bases compared to the other one.
What about general map features around those expos? Trying to expand to the right side secures you lots of random ridges, but the bases itself are hard to secure. If you take right side corner expo as a 3rd base, your direct path to that expo is only through small ramps, while the enemy can attack you at 3 locations through big chokes. At the same time, your main can still easily be dropped from every angle and the access to your back to very open. So for terrans in tvp its a nightmare to take this corner expo.... small attack at corner expo, then recall into main and terran army is stuck at ramp.... same with zvp, defiler/ling attack at corner into doom drop.
Trying to expand to the left side, you first have to take a mineral only, but this is also the base furthest away from your enemy, so its the easiest 3rd base to defend. You reduce the surface where your main can be dropped, you secured your backdoor. Disadvantages are, that he can contain you outside your natural, or focus on gas at natural/temples behind. after you took the 4th on the left side, you can defend the big ramp and your natural and only have to worry about recall/doom drop in a small area. it may be hard to reinforce through the backdoor, but tanks can support from main and sunken/cannons at high ground 4th are still good.
Conclusion: left side has 2 more bases to take compared to right side, taking bases on left side is easier to do and gives you more benefits (imo). Can we agree on that?
So imo, everybody should focus their mid-lategame plan to secure the left side (red) while stopping the enemy from doing so (ground attack = yellow, drop/recall = blue).
lets look how i see the matchups being played out. TvP:
(PS: picture is missing a pylon wall below the 3 o clock base AND a blue arrow over the cliff at 9 o clock to terran 4th)
The mains are close by air distance, open backdoor... terran should open vulture drop and take advantage of that. Afterwards they can defend early reaver drop by p with wraith. not exactly sure how survivability for terran is against proxy stuff, but if the game goes into some sort of standard mid-lategame, terran should be expanding to left side, securing his highground triangle outside his nat, and then focus all his pushing efforts along the red line in order to secure base 5 and poke at base 6. Red dots for turrets, Red lines for depot placement. Protoss can decide between taking 3rd at top right for 3rd gas or 3rd at top left to reduce vulture harass potential, with Blue Lines for Pylon walls. But after protoss has 4 bases, what is his 5th base? Taking terran base 6 is hard to defend because terrans main focus is taking red base 5 and 6, so even if protoss can take it, it easily gets destroyed. the only other 5th base left is the 3 o clock base (bottom right is too far away and is next to terrans door), but as said earlier, this base is rather open, and lots of dead space around it, while terran gets red base 5 and 6.
Because of that, protoss has to stop terran from getting a secure position near red base 5 or he loses the economy war. He either attacks on ground or recalls into main, nat or 4th base. If protoss decides to ge carrier, he might have a chance to take red base 6 as a 5th while trying to get the carriers into terran backdoor.
TvZ
Actually after making the map i realized that this MU isnt that bad. TvZ best MU anyway :D Ok, close air means 2 hatch muta or mass muta and terran might have problems defending mass ling when going 1 rax cc, or defending mass muta with that open main..... But this map feels like destination, vultures are your friend, especially behind zerg nat. Because its a 2 player map, ebay block is also effective in detering zerg from going 2 hatch muta. Against 3 hatch zergs, vulture drop/fantasy build is still really good because of close air/big main/space behind natural. So imo, terran should open 1 fac with vulture into drop if possible and defend with valkonic. Now Zerg decides to either mass muta it or switch into lurker. With mass muta, zerg just takes gas bases and terran tries to kill mass muta..... If zerg goes lurker, game should go like my map shows. zerg takes 3rd with lurker and defends tank/vessel push with lurker/defiler. terran can try to go for drops into main, while changing targets between nat and 3rd of zerg (not indicated on map) or push the natural from the highground to kill gas. after that if terran goes late mech, he should take 3rd/4th while zerg takes 4th. Now zerg can either make fast muta switch (its only 3 gas, but bases are already secured and terran is spreading wide + still has open main) or pushes forward with lurker/swarm towards 5th/6th at left side and to the ramps. (purple arrows/lines) If terran decides to expand to the purple X, zerg can easily swarm push it from his 3rd, but at the same time, zerg cant take this base without queens (or drops) because tanks from main can deny mining. Now it looks like terran can attack mineral line from 9 o clock with tanks from middle, but i still think that the advantage in lategame goes to zerg, because just by securing the 9 o clock base with lurker/swarm, he can send in lings to the 3rd of terran and easily deny this base and by that time, zerg has drop + ovi speed finished and can start doom dropping into main while getting base at 9 o clock and the purple X.
ZvP
This is like Chain Reaction all over again... except you dont even have to mine out the backdoor.... and your hydras can attack the mineral line.... from the high ground..... I first thought about doing a map for lategame, but then i realized that 3 hatch hydra is just too strong. if p defends with mass cannons, he gets dropped or has lurkers behind his nat from either bottom left or temple...... If p somehow denies that strat, with like idk.... 1 base stuff with probe/pylon blocking that bottom left base and the game somehow evens out, zerg can still take his 2 backdoor bases as 3rd/4th and then use his secured spot at the left side to take the other 2 left bases and start pressure with mass drops. only solution then for p seems to start with heavy cors/reaver, take both backdoor expos himself and then leapfrog the left side.
in the end, all MUs come down to: TvP: can protoss stop terran from securing the left 3 bases? TvZ: can terran stop zerg from securing his 3rd base at the left side/ drop him while pushing to kill his 3rd base at left side? ZvP: 3 hatch hydra!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My Proposed changes try to bring more focus to the right side of the map, in TvP, protoss gets an easier 5th base, while terran cant just blindly push to left side. in TvZ, terran gets an easier 5th base, while zerg cant just blindly push the left side. and in ZvP, if 3 hatch hydra somehow isnt an option anymore, protoss has easier 5th base while zerg cant just blindly push the left side.
It will make the map symmetric just like blue storm and provide painful game to play and watch once the map has been split, heavily terran favored.
when you split bluestorm, the split line consists of "cliff---- very long low ground with high ground ramps leading to it---cliff" so you either drop/recall over cliff where 1000 turrets are or you w8 for enemy to attack you up the high ground.... on this map, if you split top vs bottom, the split line consists of (left to right) "cliff--- low ground with 2 bases close by---cliff---- big low/highground space again with my new bases close by----cliff---low ground". Just getting into a real split map state will be very hard except for tvt, because the bases at left or right side are not that far from each other, while getting from left base to right base is harder. And you can still recall over middle cliff into main because of unbuildable space or runby at right side into corner expo.
Now it looks like terran can attack mineral line from 9 o clock with tanks from middle
No, they cannot. Tank range is 12, distance here is at least 14 between where tanks can be placed and where workers would be mining. Otherwise your analysis seems spot on.
Now it looks like terran can attack mineral line from 9 o clock with tanks from middle
No, they cannot. Tank range is 12, distance here is at least 14 between where tanks can be placed and where workers would be mining. Otherwise your analysis seems spot on.
On June 01 2016 02:19 Freakling wrote: Well, there are mining bugs in both mains and the top natural. Tells you everything you need to know about the amount of prior testing that went into this @_@ Actually just looking at the two-minute deco job tells a lot of how much any one cared to actually provide a thought-out high-quality map...
From the potential cheesy map abuse. this comparable to Bifrost, which equals more than a decade of regress in the evolution of maps.
Balance is any ones guess, but my bet is its terrible
Maybe you see something different from me, but I don't really agree with any of these.
First of, has any one who does not see this as a Terran map considered that Terran can just easily take our bases through the backdoor at the left side? Most of the map is buildable, nat to nat distance is short, there are abusable cliffs all around the nat and the ridge in front of the nat, together with these other features, means terran can easily set up a contain there (well, at least it is only a semi-contain, as three entrances into the main/nat area mean one can at least sneak out through the backdoor). Also looks like a terrific map for all sorts of Vulture harassment. Maps with backdoor to the natural, especially with an open backdoor like this, have always been notoriously Z>P. I don't see how this would be the exception. It's not that taking a 3rd and 4th would be hard as Zerg, either.
Tvz, terran requires a lot of turrets around the base. Terran requires to study of the building placements. It is not easy to find a perfect condition spot of turret within a few days. Zerg? Simple. Sunk straight line, build stuff on creep pretty much. Whoever is good at sk terran and survive first 10 mins of the game will be okay.
Tvp, ugly looking map to expand. This will be more likely timing attack/strategy terran than upgrade style terran. Current protoss level players are amazing at playing against timing attack terran. The downside of protoss is once he gives away the high ground position, he loses 2nd gas and won't able to do anything.
Zvp, zerg will require to study some hatchery, chamber, hydra den placement, and whoever is good at lurker hydra ling hive style will be good at this map (looking forward to see amazing ZvP by Hero). Protoss will be happy to face zerg's army a lot before hive finishes. Since zerg has to defend 3rd (if he took right side corner) then zerg has to come out of the map to face protoss.
Common style of TvZ in 2 players map - 2 base 2 rax att1 4 rax - 3 hatch muta (9d/9 drone scout 12h) TvP - dropship, 4/5 fact timing into 3rd - reaver 3 base macro slight slow tempo arbiter PvZ - no muta fast hive style - 5-7 gates push into 3rd, goon ht
Don't they pay that Ragnarok guy to keep making maps? I think it is a very creative map. It's cool the Koreans are still cranking out new maps. Maybe if we are lucky, it will spice up Broodwar and keep it interesting.
Played about 10 games on it today. Not enough to judge balance especially considering just one of the games went to mid/lategame(not because of the map features just unequal skill in this case) but the games have been very fun.
TvP early game seems very scary. Gas steal is very good for protoss because the standard response 1 rax fe is a bad idea on this map. On top of that you need more turrets vs reavers because there are more possible angles of attack and also there are a lot of proxy locations. On the other hand vultures also have a good time. Oov build seems like a good choice.
The map reminds me a bit of sin chupung ryeong which is my all time favorite map =)
seems like a 90-95% terran favoured? terran can take lower/top right corner bases pretty easy it will be nice to see how the cliffs behind the naturals will be used in gameplay lurkers? storm drops? maybe reavers?
the map itself looks nice every base except the main can be shelled by tanks if bisu were to play on this map he had better get out of the slump hes been in for years! (fact)
On May 31 2016 17:48 kogeT wrote: I've posted this already, but how any of you can say this is a terran map?
This map has an extremely difficult 3rd to be taken, 2 ramps to natural (denies rax FE), a lot of high ground that makes it super difficult to push, huge main that is difficult to be covered with turrets.
All in all, this map will be a 2 base madness with huge amount of early game cheeses (you can build proxys everywhere). Only thing that I find OK for terran on that map is harassment potential both for vultures and drops.
Also vs Z early game survival would be a problem (unless you cheese)
every single map ever since the dawn of starcraft has looked 'like a terran map' because they see high ground and think tanks.
Exactly, I guess he hasn't been around in many map threads because then he would also know that siege tanks shoot across half the map.
my guess would be 1/20 games (arbitrary number) would go past mid-game on this map .. not counting TvT. Mirror matchups should be really interesting on this map!
1st impressions are vulture harass is strong on this one and 1st base trade game against Shuttle already made me excited after countless FS/CB . After I realized hydras are more problematic than vultures.
mix of tears of the sun and bifrost... i think protoss will have a really hard time in the early stage but afterwards should be good. 3 entrances to nat is kind of crazy
but regardless, to everyone talking about imbalances, there will ALWAYS be map imbalances. but such imbalances make for great games, upsets, and changes and evolution of strategy. that is what made brood war so alive throughout the years.
On June 02 2016 02:32 konadora wrote: but regardless, to everyone talking about imbalances, there will ALWAYS be map imbalances. but such imbalances make for great games, upsets, and changes and evolution of strategy. that is what made brood war so alive throughout the years.
Indeed This map forces to use builds we don't see too often. This will make it awesome for the viewers. I'm a bit concerned about PvZ tho, since the main is not even ramped, while there are the two entrances to the nat.
Looks like standard map with desert tileset, with a huge donut ridge center. It looks like a ground zero on with empire on the sun in the middle. (I only caught a still frame due to severe lag)
I haven't seen anyone mention it, but wouldn't Taebaek Sanmaek be good for 2fac? The rush distance isn't too bad, the ridges around the natural seem to lend themselves to a potentially base-breaking siege, and the main doesn't have high ground advantage. The backdoor even permits some cheeky Vulture wrap-arounds: put a couple in front of your tanks to defend, and send the rest in back to kill Probes/trap with mines. Risky if the Protoss can just move forward to attack the tanks, but potentially good. I'm probably missing something, though, because nobody had it come to mind.
I like both maps so far, anything that implies multiple paths to get around the map (cough cough FS) is welcome and will create more versatil gameplay.
On June 06 2016 01:49 puppykiller wrote: Overwatch seems allright, kinda like fs if they nerfed the main-third area and gave you a mineral only to troll.
Guess I should post my analysis of OVERWATCH here, as well. Yes, it's pretty harsh and damning, but that's the map's fault alone (or much rather the fault of its maker...). So here we go.
Okay, here's my rundown of this map's "features":
Ordered roughly from the more nitpicky to the outright condamningly bad:
map name: There's one good thing at least: Since no way in its current desolate state this is going to be added to iCCup, the obvious clash in map name will not happen, until further notice... Even then, since this seems to be officially named (4)OVERWATCH, it'll probably be easy to tell apart from the mere (2)Overwatch any time...
decoration: I mean, there's hardly any. But it's just deco right?! Why would you care? As long as it play well... Only that it does not and yet another time the two minute job on deco tells you all you need to know about precisely how not at all this map maker actually gave a damn about the map he made... When in the middle of the map there are whole screenfuls of bland, homogenous terrain, so you have no orientation about your whereabouts at all, the threshold to too little deco is definitely crossed... And why does a Broodwar map need to cross-promote another game in the first place? Do they get money for the advertising or something? But if you really want to know how bad this map was decorared: just look at the ramps! Fastmaps are not any more blocky...
Speaking of the centre: Not only deco-wise it's just a giant wasteland. In close position there is no incentive at all to even go there and in cross-position all incentive is basically to leave there again as soon as possible. At least cheesers will have an easy time finding a place to proxy, I guess.
The mineral only being cliffable from the high ground, and conversely the geysers and some of the mineral patches of the neutral gas expnasions being tankable from the low ground (but only in some places, not in others O_o?!) induces a lot of unnecessary rotational imbalance. This could have been solved so much better.
Not knowing where to exactly place a town hall for optimal mining at the natural is already bad (makes it impossible to guarantee bug-free worker behaviour, to begin with, but Ragnarok probably did not care or even know about that, see next point)
I only tested mining for Protoss, and found mineral mining bugs at: bottom left main, top and right natural (for the Nexus position I happened to be testing, see point above...), top 3rd and right mineral only. The relative lack of bugs in the mains seems to suggest that Ragnarok actually did some testing beforehand, for a change, but it might also be just dumb luck, given that Korean map makers in general seem to not have got the hang of this yet...
The random spot of sand dunes on the ridge at 12 o'clock does not only look so ugly I wish it would have been just left out (but I guess it's part of the Overwatch logo as well) but also introduces quite a lot of positional imbalance, because along the edges there is enough building space for a whole lot of Supply Depots and Turrets, whereas all other ridges are completely unbuildable. I guess Terran needs extra help slow-pushing at top horizontal matchups O_o.
Even worse, for about half (estimate, could not check in the editor yet due to map protection...) of that sand area, he used cover providing tiles to make the sand unbuildable (i.e. units will "randomly" have a 50% dodge chance against ranged attacks while on those tiles). So this is basically DeserTec II now, only just for the northern quadrant of the map O_o.
So yeah, another example of Korean tournament hosts picking a map that is not just subpar but has so many rookie errors that I would not even dare to suggest it as a first draft. At this rate introduction of new "official" maps will probably cease very soon again due to pure fed-uppedness of players who are obviously expected to waste their training time testing even the most elemental things on a new map just because the map maker was too incompetent or did not even care enough (or both) to provide something actually playable for them...
I don' t agree with the ramp outside the main chokes; Its non stadard allright, but would not have been enough without that ramp? its so open allready; The rest of it i like
On June 07 2016 06:23 Freakling wrote: Being worked on? this map is so embarrassing for any one involved it should just be ditched quickly and quietly!
You seem to have a lot of problems with any map makers who don't make exactly what you'd make :s
Well, it seems its you who wants to make this a personal matter, for some reason.
I don't have any problems with anything. If any one wants to play this map, that's their own problem, but I think players looking for a good game deserve some quality and a fair warning that this is absolutely not it. Korean tournament hosts, and consequently also players, on the other hand have a massive problem with incompetently made maps. That's not a judgement of taste, as you seem to think, but a judgement of objective, measurable quality. But you probably have not even read my analysis, or you could not have possibly reached that conclusion. I happen to know a thing or two about making maps, and about spotting and avoiding bugs in maps. So you might need to come up with some better argument than "looks fun to play on" which mostly seems to imply that you actually haven't even played on it and that you probably don't know what you have to look out for.
If you do not have anything substantial to add to the discussion, the map is right there for you to check it out yourself. I even told you exactly what to look for and where.
On June 07 2016 07:03 Freakling wrote: That's not a judgement of taste, as you seem to think, but a judgement of objective, measurable quality.
Objective measurable quality? Where? Which parts of your analysis were measurable? Which values did you measure? How do other maps measure and how big must the discrepancy be to qualify as "horrible"?
If you dont give us mathematically sound definitions of your "objective, measurable qualit[ies]" then you are just talking opinions like everyone else.
On June 07 2016 07:03 Freakling wrote: That's not a judgement of taste, as you seem to think, but a judgement of objective, measurable quality.
Objective measurable quality? Where? Which parts of your analysis were measurable? Which values did you measure? How do other maps measure and how big must the discrepancy be to qualify as "horrible"?
If you dont give us mathematically sound definitions of your "objective, measurable qualit[ies]" then you are just talking opinions like everyone else.
it's literally, objectively, imbalanced. the center has buildable terrain on one side and not the other, and cover tiles (which were probably a mistake and not a feature) on one side and not the other.
the other criticisms are more subjective, but they are still completely valid, reasonable issues. i've spent a lot of time at broodwarmaps.net and i've seen what top level mapmakers are capable of, and this doesn't come close. and freakling is one of those top level mapmakers, you should trust him.
I am not saying he is wrong with his analysis. I am saying he is wrong in saying his analysis is objective and measurable. Being objective and measurable does not make an analysis correct. And being correct in your analysis does not mean you have to be objective and measurable.
Just tossing these words around without thinking is still wrong though.
That the quality of a map or the even just the exact impact of a certain severe bug are not quantifiable does not mean they are not measurable (or testable, if you prefer that term) or objective. In fact, they are testifiably there. That is a very objective fact, i.e any one can have a quick look and confirm for themselves. They are reproducible and not dependant on any one's personal point of view. That is the very definition of objective. You also rightly observer that this makes my analysis correct, which it can only be if it is objective in the first place. I have explained for every of my points how it is actually objectively bad (yes, I also say it simply looks kind of ugly and, well, loveless, which is subjective, though most people will probably agree, but reducing my whole post to that minor point is exemplary strawmaning and should have no place in a serious discussion) Can we please abstain from semantics debates now.
On June 08 2016 04:39 RoomOfMush wrote: I am not saying he is wrong with his analysis. I am saying he is wrong in saying his analysis is objective and measurable. Being objective and measurable does not make an analysis correct. And being correct in your analysis does not mean you have to be objective and measurable.
Just tossing these words around without thinking is still wrong though.
how is game-altering map asymmetry not objective and measurable?
Before you read any further please understand that I do not disagree with your opinion on the map itself. But your use of words is just wrong.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: That the quality of a map or the even just the exact impact of a certain severe bug are not quantifiable does not mean they are not measurable (or testable, if you prefer that term) or objective.
If you can not quantify something you can not measure it. Measuring is the process of mapping an input to an output of an ordered set. If you can not give an output how can you call something measurable? It doesnt make any sense. And 'testable' doesnt have anything to do with it. Nor has 'objective'. You dont "test" the temperature outside. You measure it. And you dont measure whether a program produces the correct output for a given input, you test it.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: In fact, they are testifiably there. That is a very objective fact, i.e any one can have a quick look and confirm for themselves. They are reproducible and not dependant on any one's personal point of view. That is the very definition of objective.
You say "they are" but what are the "they" you are referring to? May it be:
On June 06 2016 02:15 Freakling wrote: There's one good thing at least: Since no way in its current desolate state this is going to be added to iCCup, the obvious clash in map name will not happen
or
On June 06 2016 02:15 Freakling wrote: decoration: I mean, there's hardly any. But it's just deco right?! Why would you care? As long as it play well... Only that it does not and yet another time the two minute job on deco tells you all you need to know about precisely how not at all this map maker actually gave a damn about the map he made...
Are these things testifiable? (is that even a word?) Do you call these reproducible or non dependant of personal point of view? I personally dont and I guess that is all it takes to prove you wrong.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: You also rightly observer that this makes my analysis correct, which it can only be if it is objective in the first place.
No. Correctness has nothing to do with objectiveness. I can say "all ravens are black because I think its the coolest color for ravens". That is not objective, but its still correct that all ravens are black. Even if I was to say "all ravens are black" that isnt objective because it is just a statement. Something that can be either true or false but it is not a judgedment.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: I have explained for every of my points how it is actually objectively bad (yes, I also say it simply looks kind of ugly and, well, loveless, which is subjective, though most people will probably agree, but reducing my whole post to that minor point is exemplary strawmaning and should have no place in a serious discussion)
No again. You have said why you think it is bad. It is true that probably 99% of all BW players agree with you. Maybe ALL 100% agree with you. But thats not how to be objective. Being objective is much more complicated than that and maybe impossible. Everything a human being perceives is based on subjective perception. There is no way to proof that anything you ever perceive has been perceived the very same way as it is perceived by somebody else. From a purely theoretical point of view it is impossible for any human being to do anything objectively. But even if we assume that the scientific approach is objective then obviously you are still not being objective. To follow a scientific approach you would have needed to define the things you talk about. You have to tell us why something is bad and why something is good and how these things can be tested and how these things can be measured and how these measurements are to be interpreted and how (...) etc etc
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: Can we please abstain from semantics debates now.
Perhaps if I had read this sentence first we could have but alas it was not meant to be.
On June 08 2016 07:02 RoomOfMush wrote: Before you read any further please understand that I do not disagree with your opinion on the map itself. But your use of words is just wrong.
Still arguing semantics? Well, for entertainment's sake, that's always some easy fun. But expect this to me my last response to you then.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: That the quality of a map or the even just the exact impact of a certain severe bug are not quantifiable does not mean they are not measurable (or testable, if you prefer that term) or objective.
If you can not quantify something you can not measure it.
Wrong, because:
Measuring is the process of mapping an input to an output of an ordered set. If you can not give an output how can you call something measurable? It doesnt make any sense.
There are X minerals with bugged mining on the map is a very well quantified output, in fact. For certain bugs, the output [0,1], i.e. it's there or it isn't, is an output to an ordered set. So it actually even fits your definition. Claiming anything else would be hair-splitting at best.
And 'testable' doesnt have anything to do with it. Nor has 'objective'. You dont "test" the temperature outside. You measure it. And you dont measure whether a program produces the correct output for a given input, you test it.
In scientific terms, objective, testable and measurable pretty much mean the same thing.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: In fact, they are testifiably there. That is a very objective fact, i.e any one can have a quick look and confirm for themselves. They are reproducible and not dependant on any one's personal point of view. That is the very definition of objective.
You say "they are" but what are the "they" you are referring to?
Things like cover bugs, mining problems, random cliffs everywhere, blocky ramps (with more buggy terrain)...
On June 06 2016 02:15 Freakling wrote: There's one good thing at least: Since no way in its current desolate state this is going to be added to iCCup, the obvious clash in map name will not happen
On June 06 2016 02:15 Freakling wrote: decoration: I mean, there's hardly any. But it's just deco right?! Why would you care? As long as it play well... Only that it does not and yet another time the two minute job on deco tells you all you need to know about precisely how not at all this map maker actually gave a damn about the map he made...
Are these things testifiable? (is that even a word?) + Show Spoiler +
Do you call these reproducible or non dependant of personal point of view?
It's not the first I personally dont and I guess that is all it takes to prove you wrong.
Prove me wrong about what exactly? And why are you even so eager to do this, I have to wonder? First one is an educated guess, but a well grounded one. It is almost certain that this will never be an ICCup map unless it is massively improved on. The other points I made (i.e. the more serious bugs I pointed out and which non-surprisingly you so far just entirely ignore completely as they are too solid to be just dismissed through bickering about semantics) tell you exactly why that is. And yes, how well the little details (like decoration) are worked out on a map is a pretty accurate predictor of the amount of thought and work that the map maker put into that map. And whereas you could hypothesize that maybe all the work and thought went into other, more important aspects (which is certainly true for some maps, just take Outsider as an example), my analysis clearly shows that this is clearly not the case here.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: You also rightly observer that this makes my analysis correct, which it can only be if it is objective in the first place.
No. Correctness has nothing to do with objectiveness. I can say "all ravens are black because I think its the coolest color for ravens". That is not objective, but its still correct that all ravens are black. Even if I was to say "all ravens are black" that isnt objective because it is just a statement. Something that can be either true or false but it is not a judgedment.
Subjective issues cannot be divided into correct and wrong ones. Its always a judgement call. Only if an issue is objectively decidable you can find it to be either correct or wrong. The sentence "all ravens are black" is in fact objective, as it makes a clear statement that can be evaluated and found correct or wrong based on observable facts. It happens to be wrong in fact, as there is (or at least used to be) a species of raven which was for the most part not black. And several more if you extend the term "raven" to species of crows and other corvids which most people cannot tell apart anyway. And of course, there are albino ravens which are not black at all... And even if we assume "ravens are black" to expresses the (statistically correct) observation that typical representatives of the species corvus corax are reflecting comparatively little light in the spectrum visible to the human eye, the sentence "all ravens are black because RoomOfMush thinks it is the coolest colour for ravens" is still definitely not correct, as that is not the reason why ravens are black. It is also still an objective statement, as it makes a claim that is either correct or wrong. On the other hand, stances such as "I think ravens are cool" or "black is a nice colour" are in fact merely expressions of an opinion and therefore purely subjective.
On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote: I have explained for every of my points how it is actually objectively bad (yes, I also say it simply looks kind of ugly and, well, loveless, which is subjective, though most people will probably agree, but reducing my whole post to that minor point is exemplary strawmaning and should have no place in a serious discussion)
No again. You have said why you think it is bad. It is true that probably 99% of all BW players agree with you. Maybe ALL 100% agree with you. But thats not how to be objective. Being objective is much more complicated than that and maybe impossible.
Of course not, as what is correct and what is wrong is not a matter of majority decision. If something is wrong, it's wrong even with a 100% approval rating. I never claimed anything else. Just means every one is wrong. Again, you are trying to burn a strawman here. And whether it is possible to always be objective about anything has nothing to do with the question whether there are objective stances.
Everything a human being perceives is based on subjective perception. There is no way to proof that anything you ever perceive has been perceived the very same way as it is perceived by somebody else. From a purely theoretical point of view it is impossible for any human being to do anything objectively.
blah blah. Philosophy 101 sounds always so profound and can effectively avoid having to address any actual issues...
But even if we assume that the scientific approach is objective then obviously you are still not being objective. To follow a scientific approach you would have needed to define the things you talk about. You have to tell us why something is bad and why something is good and how these things can be tested and how these things can be measured and how these measurements are to be interpreted and how (...) etc etc
No, I don't, in fact. Not if I can assume the people I am talking to to have a certain level of base knowledge so they can follow my explanations. If you need to have explained to you how to move and attack with units in Broodwar, what a Siege tank is or how to mine minerals, what are you even doing in this forum? And if in fact some things are not quite clear to you, you could have just asked, which would probably have given you an actually helpful answer to your problem and not just some very interesting but completely unrelated facts about ravens.
I take Freaklings side of the debate: i see where roomofmush is coming from, i think you are picking up on the fact that Freakling is angry that such a careless map was commissioned and picked for a big scale tour, and are negating all the other objective views he is pointing out.
My subjective view is this: The first impression i had of the map was that it was not made with love and care; my second impression was that i was looking at a thread from 2004. My third impression was a mix beetwen andromeda, fs, matchpoint, alternate, and medusa, all blended with the wrong choice of titlset. Sorry but the whole concept of this map is wrong. And those tank lines are just like a nightmare
Yes and yes. In fact, there are spots like that on all Kespa jungle maps (yes, including FS). There are even worse and far more obvious spots on ROTK and Blue Storm.
And the reverse effect happens as well. This is Dante's Peak: And it's not just the vision, of course. the high ground miss chance applies as well!
These examples are a bit contrived, of course. My tank lines are of course very precisely positioned to all at the right spots , but it could be done in a real game, as well, if you know where to click. However, you need to know it in the first place. The effects are too subtle 99% of the time to be consciously noticed by players in a stressful in-game environment. It's nothing that normal playtesting would normally find (especially if no one's even looking out for it). That does not mean that the effects are negligible, though. If from a control group of tanks (or any other ranged unit) only two or three gain or lose a high ground advantage, that can easily turn a close battle around. Especially if players are not aware of it and make the wrong decision based on wrong information. It should also be pointed out that the cover tile bugs on OVERWATCH are far worse (I'd say by at least an order of magnitude) in both their affected area and effects. Given that these kind of bugs are easy to fix or to avoid in the first place, there is really no good reason to excuse their existence in any map.
Freakling, if all this is as you say, it stands to reason that you've released bugfixed versions of all the KeSPA maps, yes? If not, then that would be an excellent contribution to the community.
Wouldn't be much work for most of them. But a lot of people would probably not want that (although mostly out of ignorance for the issues, I have to assume).
However, there are also bugs which are a bit harder to fix (like ramp stack bugs for example).
On June 09 2016 07:03 Acritter wrote: Freakling, if all this is as you say, it stands to reason that you've released bugfixed versions of all the KeSPA maps, yes? If not, then that would be an excellent contribution to the community.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/piuA4Ty.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7XpOYON.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zMwN9jO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PKeNDtt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uTL9uOO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tnfIsKx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lyU0Sxz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bAikV0Q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iO6eM2y.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/BLinDRawR/OVERWATCH_090.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6YlsaIx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oAlVhAx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W94plUi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6fsdfaZ.jpg)
