| Forum Index > Closed |
Announcement here! | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 20 2016 23:14 Salteador Neo wrote: Using Scrap Station as an example for anything just feels wrong. That map was S tier Crap /pun The example maps in general aren't very good maps. Akilon Wastes... Daedalus Point. They are good examples of the archetypes though which is more important. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On April 20 2016 23:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I don't like the categories much. First of all any type 3 or type 4 map can also be of either type 1 or 2 and in some cases a map could be three types. Choosing which category it 'best' fits in is obviously subjective, and so you will end up with incorrectly categorized maps and maps that fit better in other categories. If someone submitted a macro map that happens to also have cool high yield usage in the macro category, but it turns out that there are four better macro maps, but that if it had been submitted in the gold base category it would have made it? These categories seem unnecessarily restrictive to the judges. Maybe there will be only 2 good high yield usage base maps, submitted, but more good macro maps. Maybe the fifth rush map will be better than the maps in the other categories.The judges should have free rein over which maps to select, while of course paying attention to the categories outlined by Blizzard; they shouldn't be forced to choose X of this, and Y of that. Add to that, that "haven't seen before" is mostly up for interpretation, and that I don't feel that a map with "cool high yield usage" should necessarily be a map pool mainstay (more something that is nice to have once in a while). It's nice to have categories I guess, but they would have done better as recommendations than categories. I only hope that the judges will get flexibility in numbers per category and moving maps between categories if necessary. edit: Also more importantly, where do middle-of-the-road in between 'rush maps' and 'macro maps' go? If anything that's the most common type of map we've seen. Very good points. I hope the categories are just pointers on what type of maps they are looking for. Mappers should not be forced to categorize their maps imo. They could just submit whatever they feel like and leave the categorization thing to the TLMC organizers? | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
category 2: amazing maps that promote rushing every game because lol why not wheres the "macro maps that dont suck" category? can you enter it under "novelty"? | ||
|
schrei
Australia5 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10683 Posts
| ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
 | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 21 2016 19:08 algue wrote: So much complaining ITT. I'm pretty happy that TL is organizing this contest and i'll be participating for sure. Map making contests of all kind should always be welcome Yeah! =] On categories: Remember that this contest is about getting better maps in the map pool, not winning a contest. Granted, everyone has an ego and likes to win, but most mappers know they're really in it for the sake of advancing the game. If you didn't win because you submitted to an overstuffed category, look at it this way-- you were contributing to the quality in a category that evidently people cared more about. That's a good thing. You added quality where it mattered. The less competitive categories will be the ones where mappers (who exhibit good judgement imo) didn't think that type of map needed revolutionizing, they were already figured out / good enough quality. That said, I'd hope the judging staff (who exhibit good, sometimes draconian judgement imo) would be willing to shift maps around to appropriate secondary categories if they're not winners in their first category in order to boost the quality and competition in less-stacked categories. On the types of categories: A note for mappers Category 1 We've all made big dumb macro maps, and they're kind of fun in their dumb way. In this case, the room for improvement has to do with positionality in mid-late-game situations. I recommend thinking about how to reward players for map presence, and how to engineer terrain that rewards good positioning in the middle of the map / makes for interesting positional choices in the late-game. This can (and probably should) include how the expansion patterns relate to the map pathways. Category 2 Rush maps already lean towards imba, so spend a lot of time thinking about the matchup specific vulnerabilities present in your 1-2 base setup. This is where theorycrafting is actually useful, because a single map element that affords a new type of timing can break the map. It's also where the interest comes from, so make sure you provide if not solutions then compensating features. Category 3 We've all made our own attempts at "new" maps. So we should have plenty of mental ammo for this category. In the past, maps of this type have been adopted because they were forced to by GSL/proleague. J/k, but actually not. But seriously, generally they don't try a bunch of crazy stuff, they just pick one innovation and execute it extremely well, which includes utilizing the map holistically to provide a "fair" meta in spite of a risky feature/feature set. That said, don't just staple one weird thing onto a standard map. That's not what this category is about. Category 4 I don't see a ton of options here for innovative use of gold bases, it more comes down to their function in relation to the rest of the map. Think about maps with gold bases that have provided interesting, good, fair games, and ask what specifically about the gold base placement created those games. Then choose the features that interest you and try to build a design that highlights those features while giving them a context of choice/tradeoffs/counter-strategies. glhf everyone! | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
As for the window dressing, here's hoping people electing to submit and the "voters" love the game! | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 28 2016 01:23 Barrin wrote: Could you give some examples of categories you think don't suck? I think the point is that categories in general don't really work. Every map fluctuates along a handful of continuums, and trying to squeeze them into 1 of 4 boxes isn't really useful. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 28 2016 04:54 Barrin wrote: Categories are inherently inaccurate, but they are useful for conveying ideas. I've tried to simplify the 3 continua every map has that the 4 categories are meant to describe. (A) "Rush" vs. "Macro" <--- shorter rush distance, smaller map, fewer bases ;;; longer rush distance, bigger map, more bases ----> (B) "Standard" vs. "Experimental" <--- conforms to the metagame ;;; tries to change the metagame ---> (C) "Normal" vs. "Gold" <--- no gold bases ;;; interesting gold base(s) ---> Again every map fits somewhere on all 3 of these continua. Yes there is some overlap with standard vs experimental and the others, but the general ideas are there. They are specifically looking for maps with a combination of certain ranges on these 3 continua (I believe you do understand this but bear with me here) 1) Macro maps where it's very straight forward to play and take expansions on On the (A) continuum they're obviously asking for more on the "macro" side, so longer rush distances, larger map size, more bases. They probably also want it to be non-experimental (B) and with no gold bases (C). 2) Rush map that promotes heavy early game play Again they probably want it to be non-experimental (B) and with no gold bases (C), but this time they want it on the opposite side of the macro continuum with shorter rush distances and a smaller map with fewer bases (A). 3) A new map type! A "hasn’t been seen before" type of map This map probably isn't supposed to be big or small (so a rush distance neither fast nor slow) (A), and if it has a gold base it would technically be in the 4th category (B). If your map isn't big or small, and has no gold bases, then they're asking for it to be more experimental (C). 4) A map that has cool high yield resource usage This is technically just a subcategory of 3 (B)(C). Let us (oh please bob) leave the disasters of small maps with gold bases behind us; it's too hard to scout gold bases and too unforgiving if you don't on large maps; so we're left with being near the center on the (A) continuum for this one. So what other important continua are there when considering the types of maps we should be after? I doubt you can come up with one that doesn't just overlap with and becomes absorbed/overshadowed by (A) Rush vs. Macro (trust me I tried with that circle syndrome and central map width stuff) -- although I absolutely encourage you to because that's definitely the key. I would say the next most important continuum would be "rocks". Yeah. Another would be "turtle vs map control" which would be a more localized measure of your initial (3-4 base) resources and their vulnerabilities, but this goes easily unsaid because it should always be somewhere near center of the continuum (neither too easy nor too hard to hold expansions). Do you not think we should be aiming for certain types of maps? That certainly makes the mapmaker's job easier, but the purpose of maps is to be played on (and watch people playing on them). When you (watch someone) play on a series of maps -- especially over a long period of time -- it is nice to have distinct variety of gameplay between the different maps. A large, highly experimental map with an interesting gold base thing sounds like (and generally is) fun to make, but when you go to play on one it just becomes a bit overwhelming. The game is already complex enough (and there are too many untapped micro-features) to need to bother complicating things with a map the current metagame is completely unequipped to handle. Are there any other interesting categories you can make between the combinations of the above 3 continua? The only other good combination to turn into a category I can think of: neither big nor small, non-experimental, with no gold bases. This is a fine category: literally standard. I have nothing against it; every well-rounded map pool should have one or maybe two. I've been away for a while.. do we even know what "standard" is in LotV yet? If so, do we not already have one in the pool? I could be wrong, but it seems to me and I would guess that we do. I assert that if your non-standard map doesn't fit into 1-2 of the 4 categories then your map isn't really useful. Perhaps the categories encompass larger swathes of the continua than you had in mind. The problem isn't really that you can't fit maps within one of those four categories, it's more that there are many maps that you could fit in many of them. I can easily imagine maps that some people would classify as a rush map, others would classify as a macro map, and others yet would classify as an experimental map. When the borders between the boxes are so blurred, the boxes cease to be meaningful. As for there being a pure standard map in the ladder pool, I would argue that there isn't currently, which every map leaning some way (though it really depends on how broadly you define "pure standard"). | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 28 2016 06:23 Barrin wrote: On maps that fit into more than 2 categories: "A large, highly experimental map with an interesting gold base thing sounds like (and generally is) fun to make, but when you go to play on one it just becomes a bit overwhelming. The game is already complex enough (and there are too many untapped micro-features) to need to bother complicating things with a map the current metagame is completely unequipped to handle." I can assure you there won't be such confusion among the judges; frankly only rookies have a problem distinguishing between rush and macro. You're looking mostly at (1) rush distance and (2) map size. Also important is (3) how many bases the map has particularly in the context of how large it is. 150x150 is very close to average; I forget exact numbers on the rush distance ranges but you can feel it out with experience. Yeah.. a macro map can also be experimental. Being experimental doesn't disqualify a map from being big or small. There are multiple continua upon which each category is based. Again I can only tell you that this is a flaw in your perception. These categories have reasonably distinct and agreeable meanings to veterans. NewSunShine for example seemed to have the opposite problem you're having with this. The last work I did helps highlight the "rush vs macro" continuum up until LotV, see "Cells" section in Resources per Cell (p.s. called it). I'm sure others can familiarize you with the rush distance continuum better than I can. Based on size and base count Invader should be a "macro" map, but often plays out like a "rush" map due to the distant third. Additionally, maps that are average could be classified either way. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Avexyli
United States700 Posts
Perhaps have little sub-categories that aren't submitted into but are kind of like little medals put on afterwords. For example: "The winner for Category 3 is KTV Antheia for bla bla bla. We also felt this map had the following: * Best use of Gold Bases * Best map for Anti-Deathball strategies blabla bla Of course we don't have the rest of the TLMC prizes and all at the moment, but it'd be cool to add little monetary value to each. Maybe an extra 5% of the prize pool or something. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
In the past, specially the last Blizzard contest, we simply didn't knew what the heck Devs were searching for other than the classic copy pasted message "be creative" which has been seen since the dawn of TLMC's and it has literally no weight to it. Non-standard maps can be stupidly varied we all know this, and because of that it is very simple to fall into what you think the devs are looking for, when they simply don't care for that at all, that's why the categories are important, not as a way to limit yourself to them, but as a stepping stone and working towards something the Devs may be interested on. Now what about maps falling into more than X category? That really to me is a non-issue as long as you submit your map, the Devs can easily see if they like X feature more than Y and re-categorize the map in base of that. Again, the categories are not there to limit, but as a way for you to know what the heck the devs are looking for in what would otherwise be a sea of possibilities. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
On April 29 2016 00:46 Barrin wrote: I personally think you'd be hard-pressed to find a decent (non-standard*) map that doesn't fit into one of these 4 categories. Heck, I challenge you to. Well of course, since you have the "never has been seen before" category that will grab anything that doesn't fit the other 3. I don't think the categories help tell us that much about what the devs want to see - they're pretty vague other than the gold base category (but we already knew that Blizz has a hard-on for gold bases, so that's not news :-P) - but eh, it's better than nothing. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
