|
[D] Base Vulnerabilities and You
PREFACE
Have you ever seen a map that you didn't like because it seemed too... plain?
I don't mean aesthetically plain. I mean strategically plain. It might have been well-proportioned. It might have been well-balanced. It might have even featured some semi-revolutionary, unique feature. But in the end it just wasn't interesting.
When I you are done reading this, I want you to look at that map again (it may have even been your own map), and I want you to think about what could have been changed to make it more interesting.
(By the way I start off talking about simple things but that's just to get everyone on the same page. I end up talking a little about some pretty advanced stuff. If you are sincere about becoming a better mapmaker it's probably to your benefit to pay attention the whole way through.)
INTRODUCTION
Turtling. An infamous word. Why? Because it's boring.
Nobody likes to watch two players macro for 15 minutes with little to no engagements and throw maxxed armies at each other in the middle of the map. Either one side simply rolls over the other and the game is over instantly, or both sides lose a lot and meet in the middle again 5 minutes later. This is obviously uninteresting to an "intellectual", but even a "simpleton" doesn't want to wait around so long to see the pretty lights.
So as mapmakers we try not to make our maps favor a turtling strategy. Arguably, one single map in an entire map pool should be a very large map that favors turtling. But we already have one. We call it Terminus (more on that later). We don't need another one (yet).
So wait a second... isn't "turtling" a lot like "macroing"? Well, yes. But no. While turtling forgoes all offense until after having an army advantage, macroing often involves asserting pressure and/or map control to secure additional bases. That's another big difference. A turtling player is content with 2, sometimes 3 bases depending on the map. A macroing player is always looking to expand.
Let's take another look at that word "expand".
Expand - [ik-spand] (verb): to spread or stretch out.
So when people expand they are stretching themselves out. The resources are their goal and an important factor, but the real key here is: just how much are they stretching themselves out? This is something I think too few people are paying enough attention to. StarCraft is extremely complicated, and there is no shame in not knowing what to look for. I am writing this to give insight as to what I have learned to pay attention to.
Specifically, I will be explaining some things I call "base vulnerabilities" and their role in "attack path layout density". Perhaps more important than that, I want to show how maps can encourage both expanding and attacking while rewarding the player with good scouting and multitasking skills.
THE FOUR TYPES OF BASE VULNERABILITY
[1] Ground Pathways / Chokes
- Most vulnerable, can be attacked by: All units.
- Blocked / Unblocked (Destructible Rocks)
- A choke/pathway that is blocked with destructible rocks is usually easier to defend than one without destructible rocks.
- Width
- + Show Spoiler +
- Wider = Defender is more vulnerable.
- + Show Spoiler +
To calculate the width of a diagonal choke/pathway, we use the Pythagorean theorem (a² + b² = c²). a² + b² = c² 7² + 9² = c² 49 + 81 = c² 130 = c² v(130) = c ~11.4 = c + Show Spoiler + The "standard" width (imo) is 9 to ~11.4 squares long (just enough to block with 3 barracks or gateways).
- Length
- Concave
- + Show Spoiler +
- More area/openness can be both a good thing and a bad thing for either side, depending on the units used. Generally, Zerg can overwhelm a Terran or Protoss that spreads themselves too far in an open area (though all races have the capacity for this). By the same token, more room to spread out can make splash units (like banelings) less effective).
- Pay close attention to how big the concave is on both sides in relation to how wide the choke/pathway is.
- Also note that this is closely related to how easy it is to "contain" someone.
- Ramps
- Having troops on the high ground always gives you an advantage over troops on lower ground. Whether they have to risk air units to give them vision or use a scan (aka 270 minerals) or simply take the hit of not knowing what they're moving into.
- Example: Consider how zerglings can defend a high ground natural ramp against hellions (because the hellions can't shoot the zerglings until they're in range of the zerglings). This allows the zerglings to perform much better. Things tend to matter more in the early game though (more on that later).
[2] Cliffs
- Second most vulnerable, can be attacked by: Air/Transport, Cliffwalking, and (to a lesser extent) Ranged units.
- Much like ramps, the person on the high ground has the advantage.
- Siege tanks are the first thing that comes to mind for most people when they think of a ranged unit (not including collosus) that can take advantage of cliffs. But even a short ranged unit like the roach can take advantage of a cliff. Ask yourself: Is there a mineral line/geyser near the cliff? Is there a reason to build near the cliff? Is there a reason for the enemy to position troops near the lower half of the cliff?
- It is possible that cliffwalking units cannot actually walk over certain cliffs. To me, this is very closely related to how sometimes there can be strips of parallel terrain that are separated by only a small amount of air space. Note that in these areas transport units can be particularly effective.
[3] Air / Space
- Third most vulnerable, can be attacked by: Air/Transport units.
- Consider how much room there is between the edge of the map and the base. Also consider how the air space is restricted by other terrain. Pay attention to whether or not air units can be "trapped" in certain areas (or caught on their way out).
- Even though Air is only the third most vulnerable type, do not underestimate what a good air force can achieve given enough room to operate.
[4] Edge of Map
- Invulnerable; cannot be attacked from this angle.
- + Show Spoiler +
Notice how bases in a corner of the map have less vulnerable surface area than anywhere else on the map.
OTHER THINGS THAT CAN AFFECT BASE VULNERABILITY
Xel'Naga Watch Towers
- Has the potential to help either defender or attacker. As defense, it can help you see threats quicker giving you more time to respond to them. However, the XWT can also be used against you.
Line of Sight Blockers
- LoS Blockers have the potential to help either defender or attacker. Usually the favor goes to the side with air units, but being able to set up ambushes is good too.
Raised, Unpathable Terrain
- Similar to LoS blockers, this has the potential to help either defender or attacker. Usually the favor goes to the side with air units.
Ingenuity
- I am definitely not claiming that all possibilities are within the scope of what I am explaining here. The thing that keeps me mapmaking is that there is always room for new ways of doing things. Maybe you can combine some of these elements I'm talking about to make something that will someday be standard in most maps. Maybe there are different ways of thinking about these things that can make something entirely new.
PROGRESSIVE VULNERABILITY
As a general rule, the closer a base is to your main the easier it should be to defend. Actually that tends to happen anyway simply because of that virtue, but it should also be coaxed and controlled by manipulating the four types of vulnerabilities.
Another important thing to understand is that things tend to be more important earlier in the game. This is a difficult concept to explain, but it's true. I guess what I'm saying is that you should pay closer attention to earlier bases' vulnerabilities.
A prime example of this is how easy it is to take your natural expansion. When you think about it, the decision of when to expand (or not to expand) is really the first really big decision you have to make in a game. If you don't expand fast enough and don't put pressure on your opponent if he is, then you might not have enough map presence to be able to claim a third base when it comes time to. Therefore we should pay close attention to just how easy it is to expand. Perhaps the most important factor in this (that I'm not sure most people are aware of) is something I will call the "ramp -> cc/nexus relation".
+ Show Spoiler + I'm certainly not saying that every map should have the same or even similar ramp -> cc/nexus relation, but I don't think enough people are aware of just how important it is for an FE'ing Terran or Protoss. The more buildings it takes to close your ramp and connect it to your cc/nexus, the harder that natural is to FE into. I would almost argue that this is so pivotal that maps should be balanced around it.
By the way it's perfectly fine to throw in an easy-to-defend base later on in an expansion pattern (creativity is the heart of mapmaking after all), but you will generally want to give this type of base less resources (there is a strong connection between this "progressive base vulnerability" concept and how many resources each of those bases should have).
Also, it's important to take an entire expansion and attack path layout pattern as a whole. Each base has an effect on every other base. Always try to take in the big picture without forgetting all the little details.
BASES COVERING BASES
The true key to encouraging both expanding and attacking is utilizing a technique I call "bases covering bases". Basically, you can use later, more vulnerable bases to help earlier bases become less vulnerable by placing them in such a way that they cover certain attack paths.
+ Show Spoiler + Take a look at Crossfire SE. The main base has a backdoor entrance with destructible rocks blocking it (path 1). However, when you take (base a), (path 1) essentially closes while (path 2) and (path 3) open up. Furthermore, when you take (base b), (path 3) closes while (path 4) and (path 5) open up. That's a total of 5 paths, but when you actually take two of those bases you are down to 3 paths. Very cool.
There's actually a more extreme way of doing this (sorry for no pictures to explain it), but basically there are ways to make a base cover many paths. Usually this is done by placing it towards the center of a map... and it doesn't necessarily have to "cover" any paths as much as it simply becomes a much easier target (so when they're busy attacking it they're not attacking more tucked-in bases).
Let me sorta squeeze this in here: + Show Spoiler +
CASE STUDY: TERMINUS
+ Show Spoiler +VULNERABILITY TYPE: Red = Ground Cyan = Cliff Green = Air Yellow = Edge of Map The first thing you should notice when analyzing Terminus for vulnerabilities is that the first three bases all share a single choke point! I chose this example specifically to show what a map that favors turtling could look like. If you can defend all ground paths to your first three bases with a single choke point (especially since it happens to not be a very wide choke point), then that definitely encourages a player to decide to turtle.
It is interesting to consider the turtle-ness of the first three bases in stark contrast to the massive vulnerability of the fourth base in the middle of the map.
Let me be clear, however, and say that this is actually quite an excellent map. I said earlier that it's okay if there is a single map in a map pool that favors turtling, and I meant it. This map happens to fill that role extremely well.
Those three bases may not be very vulnerable to ground, but they're actually quite vulnerable in other ways. The third base is very vulnerable to air, and the main is somewhat vulnerable to air. The main is also rather vulnerable to being dropped (notice how there is a small strip of air terrain between the main and the fourth... as mentioned earlier this makes an excellent staging ground for drop play). Also the main is somewhat vulnerable to cliffwalking units. (I could be mistaken but I think the main ramp is double-wide like scrap station, which makes it more vulnerable in the early game).
Furthermore, turtling on this map is risky simply because doing so makes you lose map control, and there are a lot of bases on this map (16... the most any map should have), so your enemy could just take another 3 bases while you're turtling, so that it's 6-7 bases vs your turtled 3.
All things considered, this is actually a pretty damn good turtle map. But it's still a turtle map, and we don't want more than one of those in a map pool. Let me emphasize once again the high density of ground attack paths on this map, and now let's look at how it contrasts with an attack path layout with lower density.
CASE STUDY: XEL'NAGA CAVERNS
+ Show Spoiler +VULNERABILITY TYPE: Red = Ground Cyan = Cliff Green = Air Yellow = Edge of Map Oh my! Look at all that red going all over the place. Plenty of cyan too. This is a great example of a lower density attack path layout. + Show Spoiler +Do not be confused and think that more red/cyan means more density... what it really means is how those attack paths are in relation to the bases themselves... That is, the attack paths are surrounding/all over the bases instead of concentrated into a few areas.
Let us not forget that Xel'Naga Caverns was, for a long time, considered the most balanced map around (and arguably the most interesting). You might think that high vulnerability of all the bases discourages expanding. This looks good on paper, but when it comes down to it most games you see on this map actually go into the late game with plenty of back-and-forth. Why is that?
Well first it starts with a good (low building requirement) ramp -> natural cc/nexus relation. That is, taking your natural expansion isn't actually that hard even though it is quite vulnerable/open. From there, something interesting (and really important) happens. Basically, skill becomes a huge factor.
This particular map with all of the base vulnerabilities and low attack path density rewards the player who can scout and split up their forces (both offensively and defensively). This concept combined with using the "bases covering bases" technique are really the keys to making a map encourage both expanding and attacking.
UNIT COMPOSITIONS, BASE VULNERABILITIES, AND STATIC DEFENSES
The last important concept I want to talk about is also an enormous metagame step that will inevitably be made some time in the future.
Most people who play this game understand the concept of trying to figure out what your enemy is making and then making the correct units in response. This is only about half of the picture.
You should also consider how unit countering (and capabilities) relates to the vulnerabilities of your bases, and how that works into a long-term expansion plan. You want to think about how well the units your enemy is making can take advantage of each vulnerability in your bases. You want to think about which vulnerabilities your own units can take advantage of, and how, when, and where you should protect your own base(s) (with static defenses or not) in relation to the enemy's forces. You'll also want to consider which bases you should be taking (and when to take them) based off of the capabilities of your own forces and your enemy's, and also based off of what you'll be making after you take said bases.
I could go on and on about this, but basically base vulnerabilities and their positioning and the timings that you can take advantage of them (or defend them) will be (and is) at least as important as the unit timings and positionings themselves.
Perhaps one perspective is to think of the bases themselves as just really big units, and the units are just the base's weapons or defense/hitpoints. Base vulnerabilities are a key component of the base's characteristics. You might not be able to change unit characteristics (in a melee map at least...), but you can definitely change base characteristics.
CONCLUSION
I'm surprised that I am the first person to outline this overall concept (am I?), because to me these things are essentially the bread and butter of balanced mapmaking. These are the bare fundamentals. To some this is old news (but I'm sure even they could use some thought reinforcing). To some it is critical to learn well in order to breaking into the next levels of mapmaking.
So what was my true goal in writing this? Too often I see maps that feature a slew of bases with extremely boring base vulnerability characteristics (which leads to boring overall layouts). Spice that shit up people! ^_^_^
In general, this is what I think about how much each type of vulnerability is used. Type 1 (Ground) - Multiple base entrances are not used enough. Type 2 (Cliff) - Not used enough. Type 3 (Air) - Not used enough. Type 4 (Edge of map) - Used too much (on bases outside of main).
I'm Back <3 - Barrin
|
I believe reading this not only made me a better mapper,but even a better player. Thanks very much for writing this up!
|
Wow, this is an impressive write up Barrin. I used to be a map maker back in SC1/BW, but I have not touched it in SC2, although I still find it very interesting. Thanks!
|
This is an awesome writeup, and something I've been trying to apply in my maps. It's great to see some documention on this. I'll be applying things the buildings between ramp and cc/nexus for sure.
|
Isn't there a thread compiling all of the useful guides out there? If so, this needs to be added to that list.
Great work, Barrin. It was an interesting read, and I'll definitely be referencing this the next time I try to make a map (Most of mine don't seem to reach completion, unfortunately).
|
Hey Barrin, welcome back! Great work, I like the case studies, should be a good map making reference
|
Looks good. I wonder if I'm ever gonna manage to read the whole thing
|
So this is what you've been working on this whole time, excellent write up.
|
well written, unfortunately its just so long i dont have the will to read it all but the first few paragraphs were well done!
good contribution
ended up reading a bit more . helpful
|
On April 22 2011 09:14 NickMP wrote: I believe reading this not only made me a better mapper,but even a better player. Thanks very much for writing this up! Haha sweet ^_^ I suppose it could do that
On April 22 2011 09:49 TheAmazombie wrote: Wow, this is an impressive write up Barrin. I used to be a map maker back in SC1/BW, but I have not touched it in SC2, although I still find it very interesting. Thanks! Yeah some things I mention in here don't completely apply to BW, but I think a lot of it does.
On April 22 2011 11:41 LunaSaint wrote: This is an awesome writeup, and something I've been trying to apply in my maps. It's great to see some documention on this. I'll be applying things the buildings between ramp and cc/nexus for sure. Awesome. Helping just 1 person has already made this worth writing ^_^
On April 22 2011 11:54 VarpuliS wrote: Isn't there a thread compiling all of the useful guides out there? If so, this needs to be added to that list.
Great work, Barrin. It was an interesting read, and I'll definitely be referencing this the next time I try to make a map (Most of mine don't seem to reach completion, unfortunately). Yup, I'm the author of that thread too haha. I'm doing a complete revamp on it very soon I won't forget this thread ^_^
I've been planning to break down all of the steps in the mapmaking process. I've almost started it multiple times... I have a feeling it would help you finish maps when I actually make it ^_^
On April 22 2011 12:06 dimfish wrote: Hey Barrin, welcome back! Great work, I like the case studies, should be a good map making reference Good to be back ^_^ I think I'm gonna do case studies like that on a lot of community-made maps (even really good past ones particularly MotM winners). I'll be sure to do at least one of your maps too hehe :D
On April 22 2011 14:11 G_Wen wrote: So this is what you've been working on this whole time, excellent write up. Actually I've only been working on it past few 3 days lol. The first day I spent ~7 hours writing a draft version... except it was actually supposed to be the real version and I lost it when I tried to post it (I thought I knew how to avoid that haha been so long since big posts on TL). But it was great practice for this much better version IMO. Spent 5+ hours (including meditation ^_^) each of past two days on it lol.
On April 22 2011 14:23 PhiliBiRD wrote:well written, unfortunately its just so long i dont have the will to read it all but the first few paragraphs were well done! good contribution ended up reading a bit more . helpful Yeah I tried to keep it as short as possible while still explaining the more important things. There's just such an important big picture here... so important (as far as mapmaking goes) that I still feel like I'm hardly doing it justice.
Major props to anyone who can read the whole thing, understand every sentence, and even read between the lines somewhat (I tried to make it rather clear) to really get the big picture.
|
Awesome read! Thank you. This article would almost qualify for the strategy section, I learned a lot as a player.
|
|
The title of the thread and the poster made me smile immediately. I'm looking forward to reading this whole thing. But at this point, I sort of assume I will agree with what's being said and will only have to point out the rare obscurity that was passed over. I am thrilled I could skim an Original Post and feel like it was effective and justified, given the level of organization in the presentation. =D
I will be back before long, but I can't promise I'll have anything relevant to add, ha.
|
Alright I've taken the information in this post and did a case study.
Shakuras Plateau vs Shakuras Plateau 2.0
Player feedback is incredibly important to us, so we decided to bring back Shakuras Plateau due in large part to popular demand by the community. There were two issues with this map, however, that we wanted to address before adding it back into the ladder pool (issues that we felt were severe enough to merit the removal of the map in the first place). The first issue was that the horizontal starting locations were extremely unfair in TvZ matchups (in favor of terran), and the second issue was that players only had one path to navigate around the map's center.
To help correct these balance issues, we've made the following changes to its layout:
The backdoor ramp and rocks leading into main base have been removed to address the horizontal start location issue.
Two rocked-off ramps have been added leading from the 6 o'clock and 12 o'clock expansions towards the middle to create an alternate path in the mid/late game to navigate around the center of the map.
The rocks by the center Xel'Naga Towers have been removed. We were noticing that if these rocks were there, it became very difficult to utilize the new rocked off-paths in the middle of the map (due to how difficult it was to clear out the Xel'Naga Tower area).
We feel the changes we've made will allow this player favorite to return as a strong ladder map and are looking forward to seeing new strategies develop. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2267601507#1
If we actually take a look at two versions they did a pretty good job accomplishing what they wanted.
1.0:
2.0:
We can indeed see that the the centre is more open. In addition by removing the rocks in the center and moving the ramps from the main to the centre expansions the map now features no attack paths that don't intersect with other attack paths. In other words every attack path can now be flanked. Due to the position of the new ramps and the removal of the centre expansions are now much more vulnerable while the main expansions are a lot safer.
If we look at the old map and only take into account attack paths that are not obstructed by rocks you will notice that all attacks must come through the centre creating an extremely high density attack path layout. In the new addition every attack path in the centre is available from the beginning of the game allowing for a much lower attack density during the early and mid game.
Additionally the map heavily discourages turtling due to how easy it is to drop in a main to harass the third and how open the central bases are. Thus games on Shakuras tend to be very aggressive and interesting.
Also the reason no one covered this before is because it's a very basic topic that is difficult to discuss. Everyone understands what you're saying on a fundamental level but very few people can express it clearly.
|
On April 22 2011 08:45 Barrin wrote: Turtling. An infamous word. Why? Because it's boring. That is a highly subjective opinion and it is only boring if both contestants are doing the same passive style. If one is aggressive and tries to crack the shell of the turle and the other tries to defend it is most likely an enjoyable game because it isnt over after two balls of units meet in the middle of the map and have one decisive battle.
On April 23 2011 18:01 G_Wen wrote: Additionally the map heavily discourages turtling due to how easy it is to drop in a main to harass the third and how open the central bases are. Thus games on Shakuras tend to be very aggressive and interesting. Another word for "turtling" is "defenders advantage" and I dont see that term used much except in PvP 4-gate vs. X-gate+Y-robo battles. There it has a positive ring to it, but for all other occasions (Terrans) it is supposed to be negative? That is a bad prejudice because Terran ground defensive structures arent that great in the first place (*1) but those Terrans need to turtle for some of their playstyles. Banelings are having a really easy time to kill buildings "instantly" already and it simply isnt possible to build 4-5 cannons like Protoss can
Personally I think the old Shakuras allowed for more aggression because of the backdoor rock entrance which made it possible for all races to do a flanking attack without the need for drops / Nydus. Truly turtling is impossible on this map unless you want to leave roughly 3/4th of the resources to your opponent.
(*1) because they are either HUGE and EXPENSIVE or require to be manned with part of your army supply ...
|
Mappers and Players a like should read this tread, learning each maps various attack options/paths helps so much when actually playing the maps. Thanks for throwing this together for us.
|
On April 23 2011 19:53 Rabiator wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 22 2011 08:45 Barrin wrote: Turtling. An infamous word. Why? Because it's boring. That is a highly subjective opinion and it is only boring if both contestants are doing the same passive style. If one is aggressive and tries to crack the shell of the turle and the other tries to defend it is most likely an enjoyable game because it isnt over after two balls of units meet in the middle of the map and have one decisive battle. On April 23 2011 18:01 G_Wen wrote: Additionally the map heavily discourages turtling due to how easy it is to drop in a main to harass the third and how open the central bases are. Thus games on Shakuras tend to be very aggressive and interesting. Another word for "turtling" is "defenders advantage" and I dont see that term used much except in PvP 4-gate vs. X-gate+Y-robo battles. There it has a positive ring to it, but for all other occasions (Terrans) it is supposed to be negative? That is a bad prejudice because Terran ground defensive structures arent that great in the first place (*1) but those Terrans need to turtle for some of their playstyles. Banelings are having a really easy time to kill buildings "instantly" already and it simply isnt possible to build 4-5 cannons like Protoss can Personally I think the old Shakuras allowed for more aggression because of the backdoor rock entrance which made it possible for all races to do a flanking attack without the need for drops / Nydus. Truly turtling is impossible on this map unless you want to leave roughly 3/4th of the resources to your opponent. (*1) because they are either HUGE and EXPENSIVE or require to be manned with part of your army supply ...
You seem to be conflating several distinct issues. I want to focus on turtling.
The way it's being used here is to mean sitting on 2 or 3 bases while you make a dominating army. Subsequently you use your army to both threaten the opponent with complete destruction while asserting heavy map control, and you can expand behind that to keep from being so very all-in.
I don't think anyone disagrees that's it's fun to watch harassment against a defensive player. The problem comes when turtling is too easy because of the map, at the expense of other styles. It should be a serious overall strategic choice to pursue a turtle-into-push strategy. It shouldn't be an automatic option because the map affords so much security and certainty to ensure an advantageous late game position.
With regard to Shakuras Plateau, there were only narrow push paths directly to expansions of your opponent, so the push part of the turtle strategy was deemed too strong on the old version. The new version, as Gwen commented in his case study, does indeed improve the situation by allowing the defender to defray a push by using the available routes to flank or counterattack.
That's not all! But later...
|
This thread allowed me to take a map from a general idea to a well analyzed prototype. Thank you.
|
Great post OP! I think that I'll certainly try to apply this to my maps now. Actually, looking back on them after reading this, they're all kinda bad... Thanks for the advice!
|
Man I've thought of so many things to add to this, I felt like I shouldn't write any of it unless I write all of it. The problem is that "all of it" would pretty much double the size, and I'm not sure that would really be worth it Oh well, I'll probably get around to applying most of those things to other things I end up writing about.
I'm definitely down for making any corrections or maybe adding something anyone feels should really be added, though.
Apparently this helps more than just mapmakers, so should I go ahead and put it somewhere where it would get more attention?
Poll: Make a new thread for more attention to this?Yes (Put in SC2 Strategy) (7) 70% Yes (Put in SC2 General) (2) 20% No (I'm knowledge-greedy) (1) 10% No (Not helpful/Incomplete) (0) 0% 10 total votes Your vote: Make a new thread for more attention to this? (Vote): Yes (Put in SC2 General) (Vote): Yes (Put in SC2 Strategy) (Vote): No (I'm knowledge-greedy) (Vote): No (Not helpful/Incomplete)
|
|
On May 27 2011 19:04 adso wrote:i vote: stay here ! + Show Spoiler +you runner + Show Spoiler +You got to make the bi aaaaaaaaa tches come to YOU dog Sorry.. i mean get the circulation in customs from strat, not go reverse forum ... (getting custom forum featured by tl admin/mod(s) for a start.. join with freaky MaverK and his "bw will live forever" mod) not (i repeat "NOT") dip gold into the "cess" pool Circulation should + Show Spoiler + Man, I know this guy didn't really contribute a lot and maybe disrupted more than anything, but I can't help but really laugh at some of his posts. Was of the funniest posters IMO, even if he isn't trying to be.
But maybe I just liked him because he liked me >.<
|
|
Woah, you're back? wtf? lol. I said that thinking you were gone forever. I actually noticed that you were unbanned (your icon was no longer a nuke) a few days ago when I was researching threads for the mapmaking links compilation.
Just so we get something straight, "trying" isn't the same thing as "doing". I believe you tried quite a lot, but in order to actually contribute you need to be able to explain yourself properly, which quite frankly isn't one of your specialties
Let's put it this way. I have "tried" to make really badass, top-of-the-line maps for the past year. I think I total'd about 10 maps. BUT... as a whole, each one of them was rather terrible in terms of actual balance and strategy (give or take). I may have "tried" to make top-of-the-line maps, but I didn't actually "do" it.
That said, a key thing to understand about communication (which is what forums are about), is that in communication what matters most is perception. You can be explaining the most epic, meta-game future/shifting, badass overarching theory in mapmaking/strategy, but if nobody really understands (perceives) you properly, then you're not really communicating anything except confusion.
[epeen] Luckily for me, "god" has gifted me with an above-average IQ, but even better the ability to perceive and understand things that most people aren't even aware of (even if the information is a little garbled, which BTW is a sign of a higher IQ). If only I could remember all of the strange ass (and severe) typos I've been able to decipher (over past 10 years) when everyone else was like "wtf did he say"? What I'm saying is that most of the time I do understand you, but good god man, it usually takes some of my best deciphering skills, and often a bit of patience. It is often disrupting even for me to read what you're saying, I can only imagine how disrupting it must be for most other people here. [/epeen]
So what I'm saying is that the only real measure of contribution is OTHER PEOPLE's ability to understand (perceive) you properly. So you might be TRYING to contribute, and you might have something good to contribute (which you do BTW), but if nobody actually understands you then you're not actually contributing a whole lot. Especially when they have to spend extra time and patience just to try (and often fail) to.
So your lack of an ability to articulate yourself (in English) properly stems from a lot of things, but mostly these two things. (1) You're just not that good at English yet (particularly grammar), which nobody can or should fault you for and (2) By extension of 1, a lot of the time the words you use mean a somewhat different than what you think they mean. So, as far as 2 is concerned, even if people have the patience to decipher and understand what you're saying, we still have to (for brevity's sake) explain or define what these words actually mean, which is an even further disruption just to reply to you properly (let this post (and many others I've made TBH) serve as evidence of that (but I have much patience so it's no big deal to me)).
So, what I'm saying is that trying to contribute just isn't the same as actually contributing. In your case, the biggest thing holding you back on this website is your ability to articulate yourself (in English) properly. So as much as I love ya man, unless you are able to step up your articulation several notches (which you seem to be on your way to doing), then I don't see you lasting much longer (again)
<3
|
thanks for this great great post!
i was thinking about any "hard facts" for quite a while, as i was trying to make my own maps more balanced and more interesting, and this really helped me alot!
|
|
|
|