EPTThanks Barrin, by the way, for being the analyzer's biggest supporter!
[Tool] SC2 Map Analyzer - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
Thanks Barrin, by the way, for being the analyzer's biggest supporter! | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Nadorou
Sweden21 Posts
| ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
On September 17 2010 05:04 Nadorou wrote: Hmm... that's odd, the debris is just a normal 6x6 destructible debris, and that shape is definitely in there... They're placed on ramps, but I doubt that's the problem; any ideas on what else it could be? Appreciate the help. If you send the map file to dimfish.mapper@gmail.com I will poke around and see what's happening. Did you by any chance start this map with a beta version of the editor? I've had issues where Blizzard has changed the names of objects between version. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/sc2-map-analyzer/pages/analysis-details/#w-shortest-paths Love the data, but us full time working, with wife and kids types don't have quite enough time to do it all. EDIT: more stuff/better link below, but still not the new new maps. Maybe put dates on when the maps were analyzed. http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/sc2-map-analyzer/images/?page=3 | ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
| ||
|
Nadorou
Sweden21 Posts
Edit: Issue resolved simply by updating the map analyzer to version 1.4.3. The version I was using was 1.4.2, which failed to recognized the Destructible Debris I had placed. | ||
|
Strutswell
Canada47 Posts
On September 23 2010 00:08 Blacklizard wrote: Any chance someone can help update and analyze more ladder maps and post results to a webpage/whatever similar to what we see here: http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/sc2-map-analyzer/pages/analysis-details/#w-shortest-paths Love the data, but us full time working, with wife and kids types don't have quite enough time to do it all. EDIT: more stuff/better link below, but still not the new new maps. Maybe put dates on when the maps were analyzed. http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/sc2-map-analyzer/images/?page=3 I suggest we gather this kind of info on the liquipedia sc2 wiki here: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Maps but I wonder if this is against the terms of use for either Blizzard or the author of the sc2 analyzer? I figure this kind of info in one central place will help the community to better understand the maps and their unique features. | ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
I've got a project to map the footprint for every doodad (there are A LOT of doodads) because for now I'm not aware that anyone knows how to get the raw game data out. This is going to help with the ladder analysis and everyone's custom maps because other than d-rocks and a few key things, the analyzer ignores doodads. Also there are a few new analysis features I'm working in that will be worth the effort for getting insight into the ladder map pool. | ||
|
Strutswell
Canada47 Posts
On September 26 2010 17:12 dimfish wrote: I did this for the beta ladder maps and I'm going to publish the results for the current ladder pool, just give me some time... I've got a project to map the footprint for every doodad (there are A LOT of doodads) because for now I'm not aware that anyone knows how to get the raw game data out. This is going to help with the ladder analysis and everyone's custom maps because other than d-rocks and a few key things, the analyzer ignores doodads. Also there are a few new analysis features I'm working in that will be worth the effort for getting insight into the ladder map pool. Awesome news! I kinda skimmed through the thread didn't really understand what you were talking about with "foot prints" but this makes sense now. Glad this tool exists, thanks for putting so much work into it! | ||
|
k10forgotten
Brazil260 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://static.sc2mapster.com/content/images/25/708/ParanoidAndroid-influence-1-2.png) | ||
|
Myrkur
United States34 Posts
On September 29 2010 04:16 k10forgotten wrote: So I have one little complaint about this Map Analyzer as it is (or was, since I'm using the 1.4.2). I'e utilized it to make the Paranoid Android port and made the map based on its saying of balanced. The map is completely balanced (99.9% in resources and 100% in openness) but it is far from being really balanced. The "creep distance" main2nat of the right player is much shorter than the left player's (2 creep tumors vs. 3 creep tumors). If the distance is longer, why would it say the map isn't? Why is it balanced? + Show Spoiler + It's a problem due to how creep spreads, not the map. | ||
|
k10forgotten
Brazil260 Posts
On September 29 2010 04:34 Myrkur wrote: It's a problem due to how creep spreads, not the map. The problem isn't how creep spreads - the maximum creep radius is constant, and you can see it in the map editor. The fact is that a common sense of map balance is that distance between main and natural must be equal. But the distance of the resources to the main is longer in one base, and yet it shows that it is balanced... I just saw the e-mail ( that is in red... on the front page. /o\ ). | ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
On September 29 2010 04:16 k10forgotten wrote: So I have one little complaint about this Map Analyzer as it is (or was, since I'm using the 1.4.2). I'e utilized it to make the Paranoid Android port and made the map based on its saying of balanced. The map is completely balanced (99.9% in resources and 100% in openness) but it is far from being really balanced. The "creep distance" main2nat of the right player is much shorter than the left player's (2 creep tumors vs. 3 creep tumors). If the distance is longer, why would it say the map isn't? Why is it balanced? + Show Spoiler + On September 29 2010 06:02 k10forgotten wrote: The problem isn't how creep spreads - the maximum creep radius is constant, and you can see it in the map editor. The fact is that a common sense of map balance is that distance between main and natural must be equal. But the distance of the resources to the main is longer in one base, and yet it shows that it is balanced... Okay, there is a really, really important point to make here: the Map Analyzer does not know whether a map is perfectly balanced by every possible metric! The image you posted clearly states that the map is balanced by resources and by openness. If that doesn't make sense, there is a comprehensive explanation at the project's site that is also the second link in the OP of this thread. The map analyzer assist you in balancing maps. So what does this image tell you? ![[image loading]](http://static.curseforge.net/thumbman/images/25/761/417x600/ParanoidAndroid-influence-1-2.png.-m1.png) It says that the top base has more influence over its natural (closer) than the right base has over its own: top exerts 76% over its natural, right exerts 73% influence. This right here is a slight imbalance, but the top of the image tells you that considering the entire map the starting locations exert an equal amount of resources when scaled by influence, and the openness of the bases equalizes, too. So the map analyzer can help you place bases asymmetrically, but fairly, but it doesn't (yet) calculate whether start locations can connect the creep of the main to the natural equally. This is actually a difficult calculation. For instance, even on maps where the air distance main2nat is exactly the same the bases might need a different number of creep tumors: when a creep tumor cannot place the next tumor at maximum range because the max range overlaps the cliff and ramp (which happens a lot!). I'll post an image of that when I get home if the tumor problem is confusing. Anyway, I've heard this mentioned a lot in many map threads, so I'll add a ticket to the analyzer about considering creep tumors. | ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
For instance, I am seriously considering scrapping the current influence image. Apparently the information it conveys is confusing (and I think understandably so) and it can be hard to utilize the info unless you know exactly what's being shown. So I'm thinking of doing this instead: for EACH 1v1 spawn possibility (like influence is now, 3vs12, 3vs6, 6v12...) do a "heat map" of influence. This would paint every cell on the map with, say red or blue, where more red means spawn 1 has more influence and more blue means spawn 2 has more. Areas where the influence is even (50%) would appear grey. Then I can still list the percentages for you nuts who love to see the numbers come out exact. I'm pretty sure this will be much more obvious info for balancing a map--or does anyone feel strongly for current version? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
| ||
| ||
