|
United States10231 Posts
Terran have it easy with just walling, which you can get a tight 2 depot and rax diagonal wall on all spawns. the only issue is if Terran spawn in either of the top locations, as your marines will spawn on the outside of the wall.
For Protoss, there's not really a good option. Here are images trying to reach as far out on the diagonal as possible. Pylon at the bottom doesn't seem like a great move since you're limiting your pylon field range, so I think in the middle with gate above and forge below is your best bet, then pull probes. Bottom right and top left spawns are the worst for pylon on bottom as your gate is in a really weird and awkward position. Pylon in the middle means you might have a sizeable hole, but it's only one hole compared to the traditional pylon at the bottom walls.
https://imgur.com/EzFh3SI
https://imgur.com/dPpaEtI
|
On June 08 2024 10:43 FlaShFTW wrote:Terran have it easy with just walling, which you can get a tight 2 depot and rax diagonal wall on all spawns. the only issue is if Terran spawn in either of the top locations, as your marines will spawn on the outside of the wall. For Protoss, there's not really a good option. Here are images trying to reach as far out on the diagonal as possible. Pylon at the bottom doesn't seem like a great move since you're limiting your pylon field range, so I think in the middle with gate above and forge below is your best bet, then pull probes. Bottom right and top left spawns are the worst for pylon on bottom as your gate is in a really weird and awkward position. Pylon in the middle means you might have a sizeable hole, but it's only one hole compared to the traditional pylon at the bottom walls. https://imgur.com/EzFh3SIhttps://imgur.com/dPpaEtI
Pylon in the middle, you have another hole between the Pylon and the Gate too. But I mean the point is the big hole is wider than usual. You'd have to pull 3 probes at least to plug it and even so it seems like a bad solution. It's more like donating probes to lings rather than actually plugging the hole lol. I feel like 9 pool speed is almost free win for Zerg on this map.
|
Can't help but notice that Minstrel looks awfully familiar.
It's nice and flattering to see, but I'm pretty doubtful it'll play well since the mapmaker made almost no changes to adapt the layout for BW.
|
Thinner pizza slices on gladiator, I like it
|
been watching some games and some maps seem underwhelming. Sure, they need a bit more time to figure some maps out and optimize, but some maps look like they wont make it.
|
United States10231 Posts
On June 08 2024 15:29 TMNT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2024 10:43 FlaShFTW wrote:Terran have it easy with just walling, which you can get a tight 2 depot and rax diagonal wall on all spawns. the only issue is if Terran spawn in either of the top locations, as your marines will spawn on the outside of the wall. For Protoss, there's not really a good option. Here are images trying to reach as far out on the diagonal as possible. Pylon at the bottom doesn't seem like a great move since you're limiting your pylon field range, so I think in the middle with gate above and forge below is your best bet, then pull probes. Bottom right and top left spawns are the worst for pylon on bottom as your gate is in a really weird and awkward position. Pylon in the middle means you might have a sizeable hole, but it's only one hole compared to the traditional pylon at the bottom walls. https://imgur.com/EzFh3SIhttps://imgur.com/dPpaEtI Pylon in the middle, you have another hole between the Pylon and the Gate too. But I mean the point is the big hole is wider than usual. You'd have to pull 3 probes at least to plug it and even so it seems like a bad solution. It's more like donating probes to lings rather than actually plugging the hole lol. I feel like 9 pool speed is almost free win for Zerg on this map.
Right, that's what I meant by still having the sizeable hole for Protoss. I think the choke should be angled a bit more either horizontal or vertical so to help Protoss with walling. The only other idea would somehow to, like how Zerg gets their sunken, to give Protoss spawns an additional energy field to build buildings closer to the top egg so they can make a more diagonal wall and only have one hole, but idk how a map maker would ever code that into the game.
|
On June 08 2024 18:05 -NegativeZero- wrote:Can't help but notice that Minstrel looks awfully familiar. It's nice and flattering to see, but I'm pretty doubtful it'll play well since the mapmaker made almost no changes to adapt the layout for BW.
Lol….wowzer
|
|
|
On June 08 2024 18:05 -NegativeZero- wrote:Can't help but notice that Minstrel looks awfully familiar. It's nice and flattering to see, but I'm pretty doubtful it'll play well since the mapmaker made almost no changes to adapt the layout for BW.
Oof.. 
|
Hello. I am NEMEC, the map creator of Deja Vu, Illusion, and Catalyst.
This is my first time greeting you here. I will briefly share my thoughts.
I understand why you are disappointed with the new maps.
While SOOP(AfreecaTV) allows us to create the maps we want,
retired professional gamers in Korea do not.
They prefer simpler maps.
They are currently finding it difficult to play on (Catalyst, Minstrel, BackStreet, RandomForest) as well.
and are asking to reduce the number of candidate maps.
To create easy maps, we inevitably end up with formats similar to existing maps.
I want to create diverse maps, but due to the limitations of the StarCraft editor,
it is very difficult to find something new.
As gamers' demands increase when creating maps,
freedom in design decreases.
For example, starting layouts like Python or 5-8 player maps are hard to make.
(This is due to issues like Mutalisk balance and rush distances.)
There are also rush distance problems, and each race's gamers have different interests,
so it is regrettable that we cannot create as diversely as before.
Currently, they are boycotting the ASL 17 map, Troy.
In addition to balance problems, they dislike playing on Troy because it requires a lot of micro-management.
To reduce such micro-management, I created two concept maps (Catalyst, Illusion) with less complex terrain this season,
but Illusion also did not receive good reviews.
It is not a balance issue (there are not many games played on it in the first place),
but because it falls outside the range of maps they prefer.
|
Pro players should not have that much of a say. The more successful they are, the more they want to preserve status quo.
BW is entertainment, period. If the entertainment value, abd viewership, is much higher, this justifies "non standard" maps.
|
I will leave additional comments on the meanings behind the maps I have made so far.
1. Blitz Y
Blitz X is a map I like. It's not particularly fun, but it’s my favorite because it was my friend’s first official map. However, the original creator did not make any changes to Blitz X, and the title was arbitrarily changed by the modifier. Since the map was modified against the original creator's wishes, most of it was boring.
I wanted the concept of this map to involve not only the final battle on the island but also significant fights on the opposite side. However, it wasn't a 100% successful map. It's unfortunate that it was close to a failure in terms of balance. (In that context, the game between Snow and Soulkey was impressive.)
This map has many hidden attempts. For example, the central map image Blitz Y design, improved gas collection speed at the 5 o'clock natural expansion (which you wouldn't notice in-game as it was modified at the pixel level), and the island expansion where buildings can be placed in any direction with the same gas efficiency.
Since it was the first time being used in ASL, I think I tried to show too much.
2. Deja Vu
During the process of modifying the Blitz Y map, I went through a lot of stress and had many discussions with the tournament production team. The balance was so broken that there were talks about a mid-season hotfix.
While making maps, I wanted to create a 4-player map that anyone could play at least once. The map Deja Vu was made with the intention of seeing my friends play on an easy map I made.
There was another map, but it was excluded from the candidates. (You can see it on the AfreecaTV ASL map forum; it’s a map called Sudoku.)
Deja Vu is a concept map that flips Jade. That's why the map title is an anagram of Jade, named Deja + Vu. The meaning of the word also gives a similar feeling to the original.
3. Catalyst
Catalyst is a 2-player map influenced by Chain Reaction and Ridge of Heartbreak. The terrain of the map is actually simple, but as you know, it uses Siege Tanks.
I'll explain why I used Siege Tanks. I think the most unique design should come out in 2-player maps, but since it started to be evaluated that 2-player maps are too advantageous for Protoss, they became less fun. I created this map to counter that. If this map succeeds, I think more diverse formats of 2-player maps will come out.
4. Illusion
Illusion is a concept map with changed resources. (The map title also has that meaning.) The 50k minerals and gas caught people's attention, but I never intended to keep 50k as it was. So, in version 0.85, the 50k resources were adjusted to 2.4k minerals and 8k gas. (There were broadcast and game time issues, and the reason for setting 50k was to gather data on how much would be harvested during the test period.)
The reason for this resource placement is that if left as is, Terran would seem very advantageous. As you know, Terran is the slowest race to take expansions because they prefer defending in narrow areas. To counter this, I introduced 1.2k resources. The 1.2k resources disappear about 3 minutes faster than in other maps. To prevent confusion in game tempo, resources were given as a reward.
However, gamers focused only on the 50k, thinking this map was just for fun, which makes me upset. I didn't express it because I didn't want to create trouble.
But honestly, I am beginning to doubt whether I should continue making maps. It seems that gamers don't like new maps, and this incident has significantly diminished my passion for SCBW, leaving me feeling bitter. I'm worried that I might have to keep making factory-style maps. If you don't want that, please show that viewers have a stronger voice than gamers.
|
On June 10 2024 00:38 Rainalcar wrote:
Pro players should not have that much of a say. The more successful they are, the more they want to preserve status quo.
BW is entertainment, period. If the entertainment value, abd viewership, is much higher, this justifies "non standard" maps.
I agree with your comments. The reason we were enthusiastic about Boxer. Most map creators like Boxer because he best expressed the fun in the maps.
Also, This is why I like Snow. He has an open stance towards maps.
However, I honestly think it is impossible to completely ignore the pro-players. I don't want gamers to be stressed because of the maps I make.
I will try to do better.
Capturing novelty, fun, and balance is something not only I but all creators strive for. not just Starcraft map creators but many game developers too.
|
Thanks a lot for your comments, NEMEC. They are highly appreciated.
Your work is invaluable to the community, and it's evident that a lot of effort and thought go into creating and updating a new map pool every season. Please do not be discouraged by critical comments.
Last season, I found Blitz-Y to be the most interesting map by far, and it's a real shame that it turned out to be unbalanced.
As for why I think players might dislike some of the maps in the candidates, it's because the modern meta relies on the standardization of features in the main and natural expansions.
The more creative the changes to the main and natural expansion, the more it changes the optimal way to play the game.
Broodwar is quite old, and so are most of the players, so they expect their builds to work as usual and are probably reluctant to relearn how to play the game.
I believe there is room for creativity and new mechanics, but it might be better to apply these conservatively to the main and natural expansions.
Instead, such elements could be placed on the map where they'll become relevant at a later stage of the game. (For instance, I think Troy would be much less disliked if there were no double-assimilators connecting the main and natural. It would still be unbalanced but also less frustrating for the players.)
I also very much agree that it's not easy to come up with new and interesting designs, especially for 4-player maps.
When the main and natural are fixed in their design, already 2x4 expansions are placed on the map. Thus, on a 4-player map with 12 expansions, there is only a single expansion left to be designed (e.g. FS, Luna). It is obviously very hard to create an original map with such restrictions, and by now, we have probably seen almost all possible configurations.
As time goes on, it will become harder and harder to make maps with these constraints that don't "feel very similar to an older map."
As you mentioned, a possible solution to this is 2- and 3-player maps, and I agree with that sentiment. For example, on a 3-player map with a total of 15 expansions, 3 expansions need to be designed, providing much more creative space.
Regarding the PvT imbalance on 2-player maps, if there is sufficient data on this, we should consider addressing it, and the neutral tank on Catalyst could be a interesting idea in this regard. However, I think we should not disregard specific types of maps (e.g., 2-player maps) because of perceived imbalances in some matchups, unless it is established that this effect is intrinsic to the map type.
|
On June 10 2024 00:20 POPsNemec wrote:
Hello. I am NEMEC, the map creator of Deja Vu, Illusion, and Catalyst.
This is my first time greeting you here. I will briefly share my thoughts.
I understand why you are disappointed with the new maps.
While SOOP(AfreecaTV) allows us to create the maps we want,
retired professional gamers in Korea do not.
They prefer simpler maps.
They are currently finding it difficult to play on (Catalyst, Minstrel, BackStreet, RandomForest) as well.
and are asking to reduce the number of candidate maps.
To create easy maps, we inevitably end up with formats similar to existing maps.
I want to create diverse maps, but due to the limitations of the StarCraft editor,
it is very difficult to find something new.
As gamers' demands increase when creating maps,
freedom in design decreases.
For example, starting layouts like Python or 5-8 player maps are hard to make.
(This is due to issues like Mutalisk balance and rush distances.)
There are also rush distance problems, and each race's gamers have different interests,
so it is regrettable that we cannot create as diversely as before.
Currently, they are boycotting the ASL 17 map, Troy.
In addition to balance problems, they dislike playing on Troy because it requires a lot of micro-management.
To reduce such micro-management, I created two concept maps (Catalyst, Illusion) with less complex terrain this season,
but Illusion also did not receive good reviews.
It is not a balance issue (there are not many games played on it in the first place),
but because it falls outside the range of maps they prefer.
I know it's boring for map makers to follow the same map blueprints because you wanna make something original/fun but there's also a balance that needs to be maintained for competitive integrity. Unique maps are great but when the map pool becomes entirely filled with them it makes it very hard for players to practice. The quality control on these maps isn't the best because everyone wants to out do each other on originality which lowers the playability of the maps (balance issues etc).
When players invest time into practicing they want to enjoy playing the game and don't wanna feel disadvantaged from the start. I think the issue in KR leagues now is that the players are so good that people think it would fun to experiment with crazy map layouts just to see how players deal with them, but imo the players probably think they're being taken advantage of.
Competitive players play in tournaments because they wanna see who's #1 skill-wise (mechanics etc), they don't really care about who the best player is at figuring out/abusing a new map (which is more about adaptability).The problem is it's much harder to make a balanced non standard map vs a balanced standard map.
BW is a game that doesn't have any added content, without new maps the game would start to feel really boring so map making is extremely important to the scene. BW players need map makers to spice the game up for them and map makers love their hobby and need players to play on their maps. There's a good symbiotic relationship but we should always think about all parties involved in order to have a healthy scene.
From my experience as a player/viewer and I also help out a few map makers, I think there's also a lot of skill required in making a great fun/standard map like say Polypoid. Figuring out how to make those type of maps can be very rewarding as well imo. Fun/non standard maps are great (when done well) but when it becomes the default thing to do it starts to become very overwhelming/demotivating for the players.
With all that being said, I know how hard and time consuming map making is. BW wouldn't be BW without great map making, your work is extremely appreciated, thanks for everything you guys do. I know map making can feel very unrewarding at times, you invest a lot of time into something that many people take for granted. When a map is done well you won't hear much from anyone.. but when it's not it feels like you hear about it from everyone;;. Many people understand how valuable you guys are even if you don't get praised and there's also people working to improve BW's infrastructure to help support you guys in the future.
|
I could probably name 20 maps that would be better submissions than many of these yet the soup team don’t recognize any map makers outside of their map team.
It’ll be like this forever
|
On June 10 2024 03:27 MeIIOw wrote:
I could probably name 20 maps that would be better submissions than many of these yet the soup team don’t recognize any map makers outside of their map team.
It’ll be like this forever
I also have no connection with the SOOP production team.
Hasn't SOOP been the most open to map creators among the BW tournaments? (For example; Overwatch, Inner Coven, Polypoid, Good Night, Tempest, Butter, 76, etc.)
I have never seen Kespa era.
If you have good maps, please submit them to aslstarleague@naver.com when preparing for the next season.
I just submitted my maps after seeing the notice.
|
On June 10 2024 02:09 Kraekkling wrote:
Thanks a lot for your comments, NEMEC. They are highly appreciated.
Your work is invaluable to the community, and it's evident that a lot of effort and thought go into creating and updating a new map pool every season. Please do not be discouraged by critical comments.
Last season, I found Blitz-Y to be the most interesting map by far, and it's a real shame that it turned out to be unbalanced.
As for why I think players might dislike some of the maps in the candidates, it's because the modern meta relies on the standardization of features in the main and natural expansions.
The more creative the changes to the main and natural expansion, the more it changes the optimal way to play the game.
Broodwar is quite old, and so are most of the players, so they expect their builds to work as usual and are probably reluctant to relearn how to play the game.
I believe there is room for creativity and new mechanics, but it might be better to apply these conservatively to the main and natural expansions.
Instead, such elements could be placed on the map where they'll become relevant at a later stage of the game. (For instance, I think Troy would be much less disliked if there were no double-assimilators connecting the main and natural. It would still be unbalanced but also less frustrating for the players.)
I also very much agree that it's not easy to come up with new and interesting designs, especially for 4-player maps.
When the main and natural are fixed in their design, already 2x4 expansions are placed on the map. Thus, on a 4-player map with 12 expansions, there is only a single expansion left to be designed (e.g. FS, Luna). It is obviously very hard to create an original map with such restrictions, and by now, we have probably seen almost all possible configurations.
As time goes on, it will become harder and harder to make maps with these constraints that don't "feel very similar to an older map."
As you mentioned, a possible solution to this is 2- and 3-player maps, and I agree with that sentiment. For example, on a 3-player map with a total of 15 expansions, 3 expansions need to be designed, providing much more creative space.
Regarding the PvT imbalance on 2-player maps, if there is sufficient data on this, we should consider addressing it, and the neutral tank on Catalyst could be a interesting idea in this regard. However, I think we should not disregard specific types of maps (e.g., 2-player maps) because of perceived imbalances in some matchups, unless it is established that this effect is intrinsic to the map type.
3 player maps are actually harder to make than 4 player maps. Drawing an equilateral triangle inside a square makes the map feel much smaller. (It becomes even more challenging when considering air units.)
Additionally, in Zerg vs. Zerg matches, Overlord searching luck can decide the game's outcome, leading to games that rely too much on luck.
Catalyst is just a candidate map, and if any issues arise during the testing process, we can simply exclude it. If it performs well, it can become an official map.
Only one out of the 2 player map candidates revealed so far has been selected as an official map. So, should we limit the test games? I think it's worth trying when we have plenty of candidates because the risk is lower.
Creating maps from limited resources naturally leads to dissatisfaction. Even reading the posts here shows that everyone has different opinions.
|
United States10231 Posts
On June 10 2024 03:08 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 00:20 POPsNemec wrote:
Hello. I am NEMEC, the map creator of Deja Vu, Illusion, and Catalyst.
This is my first time greeting you here. I will briefly share my thoughts.
I understand why you are disappointed with the new maps.
While SOOP(AfreecaTV) allows us to create the maps we want,
retired professional gamers in Korea do not.
They prefer simpler maps.
They are currently finding it difficult to play on (Catalyst, Minstrel, BackStreet, RandomForest) as well.
and are asking to reduce the number of candidate maps.
To create easy maps, we inevitably end up with formats similar to existing maps.
I want to create diverse maps, but due to the limitations of the StarCraft editor,
it is very difficult to find something new.
As gamers' demands increase when creating maps,
freedom in design decreases.
For example, starting layouts like Python or 5-8 player maps are hard to make.
(This is due to issues like Mutalisk balance and rush distances.)
There are also rush distance problems, and each race's gamers have different interests,
so it is regrettable that we cannot create as diversely as before.
Currently, they are boycotting the ASL 17 map, Troy.
In addition to balance problems, they dislike playing on Troy because it requires a lot of micro-management.
To reduce such micro-management, I created two concept maps (Catalyst, Illusion) with less complex terrain this season,
but Illusion also did not receive good reviews.
It is not a balance issue (there are not many games played on it in the first place),
but because it falls outside the range of maps they prefer. I know it's boring for map makers to follow the same map blueprints because you wanna make something original/fun but there's also a balance that needs to be maintained for competitive integrity. Unique maps are great but when the map pool becomes entirely filled with them it makes it very hard for players to practice. The quality control on these maps isn't the best because everyone wants to out do each other on originality which lowers the playability of the maps (balance issues etc). When players invest time into practicing they want to enjoy playing the game and don't wanna feel disadvantaged from the start. I think the issue in KR leagues now is that the players are so good that people think it would fun to experiment with crazy map layouts just to see how players deal with them, but imo the players probably think they're being taken advantage of. Competitive players play in tournaments because they wanna see who's #1 skill-wise (mechanics etc), they don't really care about who the best player is at figuring out/abusing a new map (which is more about adaptability).The problem is it's much harder to make a balanced non standard map vs a balanced standard map. BW is a game that doesn't have any added content, without new maps the game would start to feel really boring so map making is extremely important to the scene. BW players need map makers to spice the game up for them and map makers love their hobby and need players to play on their maps. There's a good symbiotic relationship but we should always think about all parties involved in order to have a healthy scene. From my experience as a player/viewer and I also help out a few map makers, I think there's also a lot of skill required in making a great fun/standard map like say Polypoid. Figuring out how to make those type of maps can be very rewarding as well imo. Fun/non standard maps are great (when done well) but when it becomes the default thing to do it starts to become very overwhelming/demotivating for the players. With all that being said, I know how hard and time consuming map making is. BW wouldn't be BW without great map making, your work is extremely appreciated, thanks for everything you guys do. I know map making can feel very unrewarding at times, you invest a lot of time into something that many people take for granted. When a map is done well you won't hear much from anyone.. but when it's not it feels like you hear about it from everyone;;. Many people understand how valuable you guys are even if you don't get praised and there's also people working to improve BW's infrastructure to help support you guys in the future.
Isn't map and build order and strategy adaptation not a skill though? Obviously, the game has been out for so long now that we sort of get the idea of what is "meta" at this point and maps have been designed to mitigate some race's advantages and disadvantages to arrive at a feeling of "ok this is fair for all races," But I feel like this mentality of "this is just how it is, that's the meta and this is what's balanced" also leads to creative constraints and we just end up with the same boring maps, just adjusted ever so slightly and on a different tileset. I don't want maps to get to a point where we might as well not make them anymore, and suddenly we're just recycling old maps over and over again for future ASLs.
|
On June 10 2024 00:38 Rainalcar wrote:
Pro players should not have that much of a say. The more successful they are, the more they want to preserve status quo.
BW is entertainment, period. If the entertainment value, abd viewership, is much higher, this justifies "non standard" maps.
I completely agree with this opinion and I've been saying this for quite some time already.
cheers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
