I want everyone to know that we are certainly listening to and understanding your concerns. I know full well the frustration of having a map you spent countless hours on being denied a MotM finalist position (which almost invariably leads to it being never used again).
Identifying possible problems is a good thing... but at one point in this thread it moved past the “identifying possible problems” boundary and more into “complaining/whining”. Perhaps we should discuss potential solutions to the possible problems; maybe simply asking for further clarification (now and in the future, and I'm happy to say that some of you are doing/did so) instead of complaining and defaming.
As an aside, there is this thing I like to call "mapmaking progression philosophy". I've been meaning to make a thread for it for a loong time, but it really is little more than this: I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A)
improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B)
taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map. Interestingly enough this same concept can be (and is) applied to "player progression philosophy" as well. It is a well known theory that given a long enough timeframe, the player who chooses to focus on early aggression/cheesing almost every game (strategy b) is going to eventually be an overall worse player than the person who focuses on improving their late-game mechanics and surviving the early game (strategy A).
+ Show Spoiler +(disclaimer: at least in mapmaking, Strategy A and B are not mutually exclusive (indeed it makes sense to do B while doing A); it is the degrees of focus on either one that I am addressing.)
If you don't consider yourself very experienced in mapmaking (2+ years; yes, into the BW days), and if you're not learning a lot from almost every map you make, then you're probably doing it wrong (probably not receiving/comprehending enough feedback - put yourself out there - do not be afraid to be wrong, be afraid of being wrong and never realizing it).
The first issue I wish to address is the idea that MotM tends to choose maps that are "standard".
Well, what is standard exactly? Is there any single map we can point to and say "that's the standard!"?
No. That doesn't make sense because there are many different categories of maps. However for
some of these categories we do have at least one map to look to as a standard.
For clarity, each of these categories has varying degrees of [# of bases], [# of spawn positions], [symmetry type], [map size], and if you wanna get down to it [difficulty of expanding to & holding natural], [difficulty of expanding to and holding third], [optional thirds], and [level of air space around map]... (you can go on for a long ass time categorizing differences IMO, but these are the true major ones).
main categories:
- # of bases: 8-20
- # of spawning positions: 2-5
- symmetry type: rotational; reflection; (significantly) shifted.
- map size: small [100x100 to 115x115 OR 110x90 to 120x100]; medium [130x110 to 150x130 OR 120x120 to 140x140]; large [150x150 to 180x180]
sub categories:
- difficulty of expanding to & holding natural: openness, length, number (any blocked off?), breadth of chokes (and their distance from CC), main cliffability, ramp. ((easy/medium/hard))
- difficulty of expanding to & holding third: distance from nat entrance, attack entrance(s) distance(s) from nat entrance (and their openness, length, number, breadth of chokes. ((easy/medium/hard))
- optional thirds: how many? what are their different characteristics? ((no, 2, 3))
- level of air space around map: low; medium (or scattered), high
------------
If you take all the possible combinations with just these major features, that's 37,908 different combinations for categories of maps (20,412 if you only count # of bases from 10 to 16)... these numbers double every time you add a variable with 2 possible values (and I could do that sensibly, with fairly major things like close air positions or backdoor into main, possibility of gold expansionl, whether or not there are XWT's, square or rectangle, and others).
Well, you wouldn't really want a 2player, 10base map that's the size of Tal'Darim Altar. So most of those combinations don't really make sense. However, I would say that there's easily a few hundred that do, and of those maybe 50 or so that have been done fairly well (many, maybe most, haven't even been tried).
So. There is a "standard" for
some of these combinations.
The standard for a medium-sized, 2-player, 10-base, rotational symmetry map with hard to take/hold natural, hard to take/hold third(s), 2 optional thirds, and low level of air space around the map is...
+ Show Spoiler +How about the standard for a medium/large, 4(3) player, 14-base, reflection (insignificant shift) symmetry map with easy to take/hold natural, easy to take/hold thirds, (sorta) 2 optional thirds, and fairly low level of air space around the map?
+ Show Spoiler +Or how about the standard for a medium, 4 player, 16-base, rotational symmetry map with fairly easy to take/hold natural, medium to take/hold thirds, 2 optional thirds, and a medium (scattered) level of air space around the map?
+ Show Spoiler + Artifice and some of the maps quite like it
IMO, there aren't very many other standards that are "standard" on the same level as these (there are varying levels of "standard" IMO). Maybe Tal'darim Altar is a standard for huge maps because it's like the only one. There are two more that I will get to soon.*
Now it gets really fun, because each CATEGORY has multiple STYLES. That is, category deals with spawn count, base count, symmetry type, map size, nat difficulty, third difficulty, optional thirds, level of air space around map, etc. Style gets even more specific (and ambiguous) and deals with terrain/cliff structures, openness distribution (and how it falls into pathing/army positioning gameplay), base vulnerabilities, and that sort of thing.
I'm probably speaking for all the judges (and probably most progamers too) when I say we care more about varied style than varied category (which is why this "We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!" is rather misleading and deserves(d) clarification).
+ Show Spoiler +An important concept to understand here is something I harped on a lot almost a year ago. In fact I promised (probably more than once) that I would make a [D] thread on it, but I never did. The concept goes something like this: each dot of terrain means something and has the potential to have an affect on the game itself (even if it has miniscule potential to have an affect on the actual outcome of the game).
Another thing to understand here is that things matter more in the early game. In other words, early game terrain has a bigger effect on more games played than late game terrain (probably all games, tbh). The earlier in the game it is used, the more it matters.
A less than ideal example is Main Chokes in PvP. It doesn't really get any more early game than your main choke. If the main choke is flat instead of a ramp (los blockers and high ground next to it aside), all of the sudden the entire PvP matchup is broken because of one small piece of terrain.
A simple overlord pod where there wasn't one can mean the difference between the zerg seeing an army coming across a path in time to move his army to defend the target base or not seeing it at all and half the workers and the hatchery at the target base dying.
A little bit of air space behind a main can mean the difference between a full octodrop (or two) at the ~10 minute mark being picked off by stalkers or not.
There are many timing attacks that can either be very effective or completely useless against an enemy natural ramp depending on if the ramp is 2 blocks wide or 3 blocks wide.
A single tile of pathable terrain can mean the difference between whether or not a the mineral line (or gas geyser) at a nat or third base is siegable.
There are countless more less significant examples. But all of these can have very significant affects on games... and we're only talking about very small pieces of terrain!
-----
You guessed it: medium sized pieces of terrain can have an even bigger impact.
Move a third base a whole 8x8 square (diagonally) and you can "tuck" almost "behind" your natural entrance (depending on positioning). This can mean the difference between very macro oriented games or games that tend to stay on 2-bases significantly longer.
Give a gold base a tight choke instead of an open one and all of the sudden Terran reigns supreme.
Make a main base small (23 CC)'s instead of medium (30 CC's) and T's and P's QQ all day that they don't have enough room to build, and arguably more importantly it becomes MUCH easier to scout (giving information that is acted upon instead of remaining unknown).
There are hundreds (probably thousands) of examples like this, many of which we haven’t even found yet.
Can you think of any two maps that have been in the ladder pool that have very similar categories but significantly different styles? Think for a minute; if you can't come up with something, you have no place to call overgrown and emerald jungle too similar to shakuras plateau.
+ Show Spoiler +Of course I am speaking of Shattered Temple and Metalopolis. Categorically wise, they are almost identical:
Shattered Temple:
4(3) spawns
12 bases
medium size
reflection symmetry
easy natural
medium third(s)
2+ optional thirds
medium (scattered) air space around map
Metalopolis:
4(3) spawns
12 bases
medium size
reflection symmetry
medium natural
medium third(s)
2+ optional thirds
medium (scattered) air space around map
Yet somehow they manage to have relatively different styles. This is even a suboptimal example of how drastically different styles can be (its easy to relate to though).
*These two maps are indeed the "standard" for their categories.
Alright, now let's take a close look at the two maps people are saying is too much like Shakuras.
Overgrown
+ Show Spoiler +Shakuras (156x128):4(3) spawns
14 bases
medium/large size
reflection symmetry
easy natural
medium third(s)
2 optional thirds
low air space around map
Overgrown (158x137):4(3) spawns
14 bases
medium/large size
*reflection symmetry
easy natural
hard third(s)2 optional thirds
medium (scattered) air space around map![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic44/a65c9cf919ba0aede2f956dc602b4b6a.gif)
In the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras.
The categories are almost the same, can't deny that.
Aside from basic base layout, the style is actually quite different.
Take a close look at the naturals. The differences actually have a significant effect on the early game, which in turn makes a profound effect on the mid and late game.
Think about trying to take a third on shakuras, then think about trying to take a third on overgrown. That's right; it's a lot harder to do it on overgrown. One of the thirds is VERY open. The other third is kinda far away from the open third, which in combination with the openness of the other third, makes it hard to hold both of them. Unlike Shakuras, the third you take on overgrown kind of funnels you in to one of two (very different) expansion patterns.
There is also a hell of a lot more pathing options on Overgrown than on Shakuras. The "central width" of Shakuras is very small in relation to it's size, which (if you ask any pro player) is one of it's biggest defining features. This is a huge point, but it's hard to explain it's profound impact on the mid-late and late game (comes with experience).
Again, in the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras. However, it's almost as unlike Shakuras as it could possibly be while still being mostly like Shakuras.
Emerald Jungle
+ Show Spoiler +Shakuras (156x128):4(3) spawns
14 bases
medium/large size
reflection symmetry
easy natural
medium third(s)
2 optional thirds
low air space around map
Emerald Jungle (158x152):4(3) spawns
16 baseslarge sizereflection symmetry
medium naturaleasy third + hard third2 optional thirds
medium (scattered) air space around map![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic44/b4f963b2950ee7f4cb08a9b573e459bc.gif)
The categories are in the same ballpark. Significantly different, however. Emerald Jungle is hardly even a rectangle (shakuras is VERY rectangular, part of why it has a small central width).
Holy fuck the style is soooo different. I'm seriously about to noobslap anyone who thinks otherwise. TWICE if you have to look any farther than the basic base layout in combination with the pathing to see it.
I dare you to show me why I'm wrong.
You say they're too much like Shakuras? I say you look too much at the category, and not nearly enough at the style.
While we're looking at specific maps, let's take a look at Tenarsis.
Some of you are saying this map is too standard. Tell me, which "standardish" map does this map resemble...? Take your time.
That's right. There is none (actually it does kinda remind me of my next still-private map >.<, but that's besides the point).
What you really mean is that it uses a bunch of MINOR, non-unique map features and tries to put a new spin on them (and spinning it does).
Quite frankly I've never seen a map with the same midgame layout as this one, or even close to it. The area outside of the natural is fairly unique (please prove otherwise).
Someone specified that the fact that there is optional thirds is one reason why this map isn't unique. I've never seen an optional thirds layout quite like this one (especially considering the fairly small (not too small..) natural rush distances.
I love how you can place your army at the gold and simultaneously soundly defend the two bases behind it (but leaving your natural adequately vulnerable). This isn't entirely new, but in the context of the whole map it is.
And you see, that's the thing. It's not only about individual map features. It's also how those individual map features interact with the rest of the map... Everything in a game like SC2 is connected; you can't say you know
everything about something without also knowing the
entire context that it takes place in. Indeed,
as the context (map) changes, so does the concept (feature). + Show Spoiler +This is how you can talk to someone about some concept in SC2 that you both can identify and understand, but the fact that you have more context to refer to means that they won't really understand it the same way you do. We run into this constantly in judge discussions. I personally run into this all the time when trying to explain things to people.
And by the way, if it's recognition for your good work you seek, then it doesn't really help you if few other people can fully appreciate the depth of your work. I wont lie, this is actually a main reason why I used to be very vocal in this community... What was the point of making badass maps if I'm the only one who understands why they're badass? (disclaimer: I never actually made a badass map, but if I did...!)
What I'm saying is that you can take old ""standard"" features and do something new and creative with them. This is not the only way to be creative, but it is a huge part of it. How ridiculous would it be if you made a map with only 100% new features anyway (if that's even possible)?
(By the way there are sorta different levels of "features". So far I meant only individual features (example: double ramp main on scrap station). You can categorize them further and have a series of connected individual features (I will call these "structures"). You should always make sure that each individual feature actually fits in to the overall concept of a map (there's probably more overall concepts than individual features).)
Nobody is claiming that Bardiche and/or Derelict are standard-ish (especially Bardiche), right? *raises ban hammer*loljk* Seriously though. They're not - at all.
Unique != Good.
I'll be honest. I am aware that there is more to the feeling of "standard" that I have yet to acknowledge in this post. There is something that is done quite properly in pretty much every non-blizzard map that made it to the bigger 1v1 tournaments.
I can't speak for the rest of the judges, but personally I put A LOT of weight on this. Three words:
Army. Positioning. Gameplay.
Some of you probably remember my
[D] Base Vulnerabilities thread. Army Positioning Gameplay is the other half of that story.
I am definitely going to make a [D] thread on Army Positioning Gameplay soon enough (I've been thinking about it specifically for several months now, making sure I get it down).
Army Positioning Gameplay is an extremely important concept at the highest of levels. Army Positioning Gameplay is akin to Micro; it is like Micro's bigger brother.
It is not easy at all to make a map with very good Army Positioning Gameplay while simultaneously being very unique AND balanced. It's downright fucking hard, actually. It is an art.
This topic deserves it's own thread (don't worry I'll make it), so I don't wanna get too detailed here. For now I think it's sufficient to say that two things in particular cause bad Army Positioning Gameplay.
(1) Too much restriction in pathing. This is usually caused by multiple LONG cliffs or unpathable space (long as in no breaks). It can make engagements too predictable, and it can allow you to always engage exactly where you want in a defensive posture. Boring, lowers skill ceiling.
(2) Too little restriction in pathing. For the most part, having every pathway and every base pathing-connected to every pathway and every base next to it is, you guessed it: boring. When you have too much freedom in pathing, you're not risking enough when you move your army around; you cannot be as easily be punished for your mistakes and in turn cannot as easily punish people for their mistakes. There must be suspense (that's a very basic way of putting it). Also, pathing restriction is one of your biggest tools for making your map unique and interesting.
Of course, armies don't just run all around the map trying to find the most efficient choke points to engage in. Armies defend bases, and armies attack bases (and other armies). Mostly defend actually. Which means they usually must remain in reasonably close proximity to the base(s) they are trying to protect (unless they're attacking o.O). But the best place to defend your natural often shouldn't be the best place to defend both your natural and your third, etc. And it should occasionally make sense to move your army away from this position (for a variety of reasons).
Many (if not most) of the maps submitted this month that are "unique" and "non-standard" have pretty sub-par Army Positioning Gameplay. IMO, at least.
I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A)
improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B)
taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map.
- Barrin
EPT
) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aJfnV.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/59fD0.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u34ES.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WtceU.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qy3Xh.gif)
