EPT[D] The Spectator Factor
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
SmoKe93
Germany162 Posts
Interesting thread, will edit in a while when i get some time | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
But I also think it needs to be a compromise. You can't have a map with features that the pros will not play. If they hate your map, then it won't get played. No matter how exciting it makes it for the spectator. You have to make sure your maps are exciting for the spectator and exciting for the player at the same time. A lot of the features you pointed our are problematic, in my opinion. I think they do as you describe but, on the Blizzard maps, are used poorly. They can be used to create excitement for the spectator but they are placed on mains and naturals. For example, you mentioned cliffs above naturals, cliffs above the main, and back door rocks. These are all nice examples, yet they attack the player early on. I like them but I don't think they should be used on mains and naturals. I feel like mains and naturals should feel safe (notice I say "feel"). The reason for this is because if your main and natural feels safe, then you're more likely to attack. Battles are exciting. Also, I don't want a player to lose after 5 minutes. I don't want the game to go on forever, but if a game is a highly anticipated match then I don't want someone to lose early on from a cliff drop. I want to see an amazing game that lasts upwards of 30 mins packed with action the whole way through. To me, the best way to make a map that I'd like to watch is to create risky yet rewarding expansions or an expansion pattern that leads the player away from his/her safe zone. For example, take a look at scrap station. The gold at the bottom of the map is a risky expansion. If a player takes it early, the spectator is asking himself, is that going to get scouted? Are they going to pull this off? It's a tense situation every time you see a scout get anywhere near a risky expansion. But what I've become extremely fond of in my layout designs are expansion patterns that move the player out into the open and close to the opponents base. As a player takes a third and a fourth, they should have to put themselves out there. Making it more difficult for them to defend all of these bases and force them to move closer to conflict. I think Match Point does a perfect job of this. You have the main and natural, then you've got a third near your natural, but it is mineral only. If you want a third with gas, you have to travel further out and control the high ground area to defend it. Once you've taken the corner expansion and defended the high ground, the next closest expansion is right behind your opponents base! Now, that creates serious conflict. The longer the game goes the more bold your expansion choices become and the more your opponent is forced to attack them. That, in my opinion is what makes a game exciting to watch. Not exploitable terrain features. | ||
|
flowandebb
Canada158 Posts
One thing I noticed was that many of your "imbalances" or "exploits" that you've listed are on Scrap Station. I honestly like that map. Its a very, very interesting map for a spectator. Its also got that very close Island expansion that falls under your category of "risky expansion". The LOS blockers in the middle also add quite an interesting dynamic and the destructible rocks path provides an interesting dynamic for all races (fast creep spread, tanks, colossi, etc.) It also has that very air-favoured dynamic that can also be interesting for a spectator. A player needs to know how to play a map like Scrap Station, and thats very cool in some ways. Many of the expansions are risky, but your main and natural feel safe (if you keep vision of that high ground of course). That being said, balance is a very very important feature on a map and map-makers (and Blizzard) need to find ways to make a map interesting while including interesting quirks and dynamics. | ||
|
Koagel
Austria167 Posts
I don't know if gimicky features are necessary for this. When I see someone drop on the cliff on LT in a tournament, I'm not excited. A feature that gets abused like all the time is not interesting any more. Smaller ones that don't give as much of an advantage are better suited, because they won't be used as often. Another problem is that most of the maps we create will not be used in tournaments, so spectator value doesn't matter. If we start creating maps that work well together as a pool but are imba by themselves, people will look at one of them, say they're crap and won't play them. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote: The Spectator Factor Imbalances that make balance. It comes down to something very fundamental. There are a variety of extremely "imbalanced" and extremely skill-based abilities in SC:BW (Dark Swarm, Ensnare, Plague, Irradiate, Defensive Matrix, Recall, Stasis, etc). To say that SC2 is completely lacking in abilities like these is utterly wrong. However, it's important to understand that not only are these spells significantly stronger in BW, but they also took more micro to use to their fullest extent AND to micro against properly. I've never seen anyone argue against this. But wait a second... doesn't imbalanced things make for an imbalanced game? NO. Absolutely not! What made SC:BW so incredibly balanced was a truly incredible distribution of these abilities (and the way they interacted with everything) for all three unique races. It really is quite a beautiful thing to watch in the hands of the masters. Marvel Vs Capcom 2 used a similar way to "balance" the gameplay too. There was some old write up about survivor, scrubs and balance that mentioned it. It said something about how by the time the players managed to actually divide the characters into tiers the next game was out. On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote: EXAMPLE 4: Line of Sight blockers in well-traveled areas. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ul7lH.jpg) Yeah this one speaks for itself. This was more important before people started experiencing the now-obvious danger, but it's still good to have around; It's very fun to watch when things like this actually work. There's a 2v2 map that also uses LoS blockers very effectively although the name eludes me right now. On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote: Alright, while that's a little cool it's not really my idea of "spectator value". Good spectator value usually gives good room for micro. Why not put these walls in the middle of an open area to restrict unit flow a little bit? Better yet, why not put multiple holes in the wall to let only certain types or only a certain amount of units flow through? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5cJie.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ZiZ0B.jpg) I understand that this can increase spectator value but at the frustration of the players. The last map that featured something like this, Demon's Forest, had to be swapped out in the middle of the season. On November 19 2010 07:31 Barrin wrote: Final words: StarCraft 2 is an e-sport. You can have an extremely balanced map, but if nobody enjoys watching your map, chances are the players wont want to play it for very long. Disclaimer: I <3 you all!!! Especially the iCCup mapmaking team & iCCup TV, you guys are the shit :D I just see a new level of mapmaking on the horizon, and I hope everyone agrees. I also have a tremendous amount of confidence that we can get there before Blizzard ^_^ *GROUP HUG* :X Thanks for reading.  - Barrin We love you too. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Essbee
Canada2371 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Your day9 quotation was well chosen, and well placed. I completely agree with the spirit of the OP. I would propose to refer to these map features as exploitable as opposed to imbalanced. You touch on this in the OP; there are lots of so-called "imbalanced" things in BW, but the way they interact keeps them at parity in terms of what leads to a win. There are also "imbalanced" things in SC2. You could extend the label to everything in an asymmetrical design, really. We respectfully use this meaning of imbalanced differently than "marauder stim imba" because it refers to the strategic significance, not the fairness. I think it could be clearer to say "exploitable" though. I am going out of the way to discuss this because I don't want the conversation turned on its side because of improper articulation, even though I have faith in the custom map forumgoers to keep it calm and erudite. The features of a map, as we all know, go a long way in deciding the balance of a matchup. Of course, mirror matches can't be imbalanced, no matter the terrain. However, on particularly atypical maps, there might be an overwhelmingly dominant strategy that results in a degenerate metagame on that particular map. Matchup imbalance and degenerate metagames are things that everyone abhors, and these are the things that game designers (and more specifically, map makers) try to avoid. If one of the races can abusively win, it breaks the competitive legitimacy of the game. Luckily you can just throw out the map and move on. The same is true for maps that produce an invariant best strategy, which we try to avoid in a game where strategic deviation is the point. However, there are two problems. The first is that we don't solve starcraft immediately and explicitly. How often have unbeatable strategies been overturned by investigating the right responses? If you throw out problematic game elements (like maps) too soon, you can miss important strategic developments that "fix" the problem, or rather, reveal that it was never a problem. (Incidentally this goes for patches as well, but let's not digress.) The second is connected to what you bring up in the OP. Starcraft is a game of variety, not rote strategy where competition is based on execution. Obviously the players have not exhausted the depths and intricacies of interaction among the myriad game elements. This is to say, new and powerful strategies and counter-strategies will continue to emerge well into the future. This is only natural in a system comprised of so many unique elements; you can't possibly draw direct conclusions about tendencies. Nevertheless, the pace of development and the invariant pantheon of game elements might leave something to be desired for the spectator, despite quite a diversity of interactions, many of which cannot be well anticipated by laymen. The only variable part of the equation is the terrain on which a game is played. If you never deviate from the typical, you limit the gamespace (which is always being depleted of surprises). One of the most important roles of the terrain is to furnish new and exciting gameplay. This operates in concert, not at odds, with another major role: to offer a balanced competitive environment for the other game elements to play out. What I'm getting at is that you can't draw a clear line between gimmicks and healthy variation. Professional players might complain, but everyone should push themselves to see the possibilities. If foxer never practiced his obscenely good marine splitting, we'd all be stuck in a false mindset where banelings always > marines. Of course, the game elements of starcraft are unpredictable, so it is hard for a map maker to know if a gimmick is too much. Moreover, a map maker doesn't have exhaustive strategic foresight, so the implications of any given map feature cannot be 100% accounted for. As an example, take Blistering Sands. Many people complain about the back door rocks (which is a huge gripe in general), and I feel the concensus is that the map is a little on the degenerate side. Now, when someone at Blizzard created the map, clearly their intention was to create a time-modal game. Initially, the rush distance is very far and your natural is always rather defensible. Very soon you can be vulnerable from a different direction though, and that base to base distance is much less. If both back door rocks are gone, it's a very dangerous map for both players with close distances. The towers alleviate this sudden death feel, but only somewhat. These intentions are rather general, and they play out more or less as expected, generally. But we can be certain that the mapmaker(s) had no idea that several cycles of patches affecting roaches would create a metagame for zerg that is rather different on that map, just to offer one single narrow observation. As high level matches are widely avoided on Blistering Sands, how can anyone really say if it's broken? Perhaps there is a wealth of slightly varied "indigenous" options that will never be fully explored because it takes work to find good strategies, and it's annoying to be forced to abandon standard as you know it if there's no promise that balance is attainable. The map isn't demonstrably bad, it's just accepted that way. This is the challenge. But not only will it be more fun to watch if maps have variable features, but the more we offer up "gimmicks", the more widely they will be assimilated. If even that is just slightly, it is for the better. The creation of solid, standard, balanced maps is of course indispensable as well. For one, this improves the visibility and acceptability of custom melee maps as a genre. Much less recognition will go to experimenters, but in my opinion this is a crucial task. I've dealt mainly in broad concepts, but I'll leave it at that for now so as not to lose focus too much. If the thread lives on I'll share some thoughts on more specifics like what's been discussed already. Edit: Oh ya, terrain ideas... lol. I'll add some which I had been saving to show off in unfinished maps, but they might as well be introduced here for open minds. (And edits for clarity.) | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
On November 21 2010 03:52 Barrin wrote: @BoomStevo I've been thinking more about what you said about forward harder to defend thirds/fourths etc. and I the more I think about it the more I realize how much I was underestimating it to begin with. This is a very good way to promote engagement (which in itself is spectator value) there's no doubt about it. Something I didn't mention is that it can sometimes promote two-basing strategies if they're just too hard to defend ((edit: which IMO is the bane of spectator value because among the BW player complaints that I was talking about one of the biggest things was that a lot of the time it was just a big macrofest the first 10-15 minutes of the game and then there was just one big battle and the game was over)). But of course that it's up to us as the mapmakers to tweak things to be in just the right place, make entrances wide/tight enough etc which kind of goes along with how we should tweak these "spectator value" features in whatever way makes them not too strong (I've already said this but I felt it should have been said again because it's very important). Also I don't necessarily recommend reduplicating all of those features (like the blistering sands and natural cliff on lost temple with no ground path), some of them were there just to illustrate a point. The main point of what I'm trying to get at is that expansions should be easy to take but make it harder to defend. Not necessarily that the expansion in itself is hard to defend, but it makes defending all of the player's bases more difficult. Making something easy to take, though, usually means making it somewhat close to your last expansion. Therefore, making your army to spread out as little as possible, yet still making you vulnerable to more attacks. I think Xel'Naga Caverns does this well. Taking your third is easy, other than taking out the rocks; the third is pretty close to the natural. Yet, there's a ramp leading out of the third and where does it point? It points directly at your opponent. The third was easy to take, feels easy to defend, yet you've just moved an expansion closer to your opponent, making the opponent's attack distance to your closest base shorter. | ||
|
Koagel
Austria167 Posts
 I believe that many of the features that are disliked today and pretty much always discouraged will be viable in the future, simply because mappers will run out of possibilities to create maps that satisfy the current zeitgeist. A main problem with adding new features is that they have to be thoroughly tested and the average mapper's possibilities to do so are quite limited. Sure you can play your maps with friends, but this does not qualify as thorough testing in most cases. Maybe a community effort can solve this problem? If we want to try how certain features work, it might be good to add them to some of the more popular Blizzard maps, as it is easier to observe the changes when you know how the map is played without them. On the Blistering Sands example, we could simply try to change the cliffs so you can shoot the roaches attacking the rocks from the sides and make the distance rocks/nat longer for the attacker, then see how it plays out. I believe that some of the features people don't like would not be as much of a problem if the terrain around them wouldn't boost them to a point where they start to suck. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
HollowLord
United States3862 Posts
That being said, here's my concern with the spectator factor. Yes, there is a thrill for the spectators when someone overcomes a natural challenge, and yes Starcraft is an industry built on the spectators. However the problem is that in certain cases, it can be considered unfair to the players themselves to have limitations put on their skill in order to appease the crowd. Just as the players have an obligation to play to their very best in every game, we as the spectators have an obligation to want the players to be able to play to their utmost ability. | ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote: I love when these threads happen! =D Who doesn't? On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote: The features of a map, as we all know, go a long way in deciding the balance of a matchup. Of course, mirror matches can't be imbalanced, no matter the terrain. Not true, even symmetrical maps can lead to slight amounts of imbalance. Barrin's previous posts go on to describe this at length. For example addons can only be placed to the right of a building allowing one terran player to have a stronger wall at the ramp than the other. Creep spreads further on one side than another again leading to some small imbalance. On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote: The first is that we don't solve starcraft immediately and explicitly. How often have unbeatable strategies been overturned by investigating the right responses? If you throw out problematic game elements (like maps) too soon, you can miss important strategic developments that "fix" the problem, or rather, reveal that it was never a problem. (Incidentally this goes for patches as well, but let's not digress.) Oh please do. Make another post about this. On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote:Of course, the game elements of starcraft are unpredictable, so it is hard for a map maker to know if a gimmick is too much. Moreover, a map maker doesn't have exhaustive strategic foresight, so the implications of any given map feature cannot be 100% accounted for. While you can never exhaustively test a map to the point of perfect balance you can test all the common builds in the metagame and if the map plays well and is balanced then it's a good map. Any uncommon deviations from standard play can only increase the level of excitement. On November 21 2010 08:26 EatThePath wrote:The map isn't demonstrably bad, it's just accepted that way. This is the challenge. But not only will it be more fun to watch if maps have variable features, but the more we offer up "gimmicks", the more widely they will be assimilated. If even that is just slightly, it is for the better. The creation of solid, standard, balanced maps is of course indispensable as well. For one, this improves the visibility and acceptability of custom melee maps as a genre. Well said. The problem is when "features" become gimmicks and it's a fine balancing act. The one thing that can absolutely kill a map is the inclusion of too many "features". On November 21 2010 03:52 Barrin wrote: I think I remember reading something like that... that wasn't that one "play to win" article was it? Yes. Ideally a map would feature gimmick that are both equally difficult to exploit and to stop. I think this is the point when something stops being a gimmick and becomes a point of interest on the map. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I should have been clearer when talking about mirror matches. Rotationally symmetric maps with more than 2 start locations always have imbalances with adjacent spawns, so this is not what I meant. Symmetric maps in mirror matches have zero opportunity for asymmetric exploits, excepting terran add-ons and creep tumor lopsidedness, (any others we haven't thought of?) and this is not what I meant. I meant to say, in terms of the strategy, both players are looking at exactly the same thing no matter which perspective. Really I'm just saying, by definition, it's symmetrical. This is to demonstrate that in mirror matches, the only concern is degenerate metagame, which is a direct outcome of the map, and the only one. But I can't blame truth-seekers for nitpicking.  I may write up a thing about patches following the lines of my terrain post, and address the indefinite nature of testing. On November 24 2010 02:41 G_Wen wrote: Ideally a map would feature gimmick that are both equally difficult to exploit and to stop. I think this is the point when something stops being a gimmick and becomes a point of interest on the map. Yes. That's a great way to put it. ---------- edit: Re: the other map balance thread: It's really interesting that so many people are in favour of some degree of imbalance. And not just from a realist perspective, resigned to imperfection. People want minor imbalance because it's entertaining. Important theme being reiterated a lot: the map pool is really what matters, not any individual map. I would recommend to anyone reading either thread: whenever someone uses the word imbalanced, ask what they are really trying to say. I don't mean they were wrong to use that word, but what do they mean specifically by using it? (from the other thread) On November 23 2010 08:27 Nightfall.589 wrote: That's not true at all. There's nothing imbalanced about a siege tank. There's something imbalanced about a siege tank on the LT cliff. You can take a perfectly balanced game, and easily create maps for it which will create imbalances. You see what I mean? Clearly these posters mean different things. If a siege tank isn't imbalanced, we mean its unit stats are fair. And its cost. And the time it takes to tech up to siege mode safely. And so on... any statement about balance necessarily speaks to the entirety of the game, if indirectly. Balance is subjective--I'll put an explanation in my post about patches. The salient part is that we recognize it when things are in a dynamic state, lots of heterogeneity. From a concept-oriented point of view, this indicates to me that maps should follow suit: have varied terrain with differing implications depending on the matchup and the strategies being used. ---------- Like you, Barrin, I am formulating how to present terrain. I'll race you to post it. (jk) ;D | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
