|
On November 18 2011 04:48 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so. Where 139 is short, keep in mind that the analyzer is judging that by going through the narrow entrance to the natural with the high ground of the main beside it. Sticking a marine or stalker on the high ground can deny any scout coming through, and the small entrance plus the high ground gives the defender an advantage when engaging there. The other entrance which is further also isn't very open, and the defender can utilize the narrow entrance for flanks. Thus, Havens is much different than Steppes of War since the natural is easier to defend.
Sounds good, as long as it's a conscious design decision and not an overlooked error.
|
Maybe this is really obvious to everyone else, but one of the things I absolutely love is how safe the 3rd is to take.
+ Show Spoiler +
The distance an attacking army has to travel is much greater than for the defending army.
Some of you may remember the back door rocks on Blistering sands were such a problem for the exact opposite reason. The two places you could apply pressure on a 2 base opponent were much closer for the attacker than the defender thus giving 1 base play an advantage.
I feel this map encourages at least 3 base play which is awesome. Again i apologize if this was super obvious and that's why no one pointed it out.
|
I played the map a bit and it really does have a fun feeling to it. (For now.)
|
On November 18 2011 10:01 Candles wrote:Maybe this is really obvious to everyone else, but one of the things I absolutely love is how safe the 3rd is to take. + Show Spoiler +The distance an attacking army has to travel is much greater than for the defending army. Some of you may remember the back door rocks on Blistering sands were such a problem for the exact opposite reason. The two places you could apply pressure on a 2 base opponent were much closer for the attacker than the defender thus giving 1 base play an advantage. I feel this map encourages at least 3 base play which is awesome. Again i apologize if this was super obvious and that's why no one pointed it out. Fantastic observation actually. It should be "obvious".
|
You probably saw me say my personal acceptable openness ranges are from 3.5 to 4.2. This map having 4.04 openness you probably thought you were will within (my) acceptable range; this contradicting what I said before the analyzer images were posting where I predicted the openness to be "unprecedented" and I think "astronomical".
You got me! ^^ Actually no you didn't (sorry hehe ^^). I should have been more clear.
"Bitty Dot Syndrome", aka "Bitty Dot Openness Problem"
I have noticed an interesting thing about the way the analyzer calculates the average openness. I believe it has the potential to be somewhat misleading. I am not very satisfied with accepting the "average openness" as an absolute this-is-how-it-is-PERIOD type of thing. - Me, 13 months ago. (click and read -^)
This map has more bitty dot syndrome than any other map I've ever seen.
"but barrin! not all of those are bitty dots!"
No. No they're not. They don't have to be.
The concept I'm talking about in this post can actually be extrapolated into a large scale. - Me, 13 months ago in the previously linked thread.
Basically what I meant here is that the dots don't have to be small for the syndrome to still take effect. However, larger dots are definitely better than smaller dots. The larger the dot the better. There's a bunch of large dots here (though I would call at least 4 of them smaller dots).
I don't know if I ever said it anywhere, but the best way to turn a dot into a non-dot is to connect it with the edge of the map air space. Kinda like you see here: + Show Spoiler +
Connecting it to the edge like that also happens to be the cure for bitty dot syndrome... but really only if the "dot" (read: line) that's connected to is big. By the way, rocks are one way to connect a dot to the edge of the map (and if done right is almost always enough to cure minor bitty dot syndrome, unfortunately this is severe bitty dot syndrome).
You might notice that the main-nat has these dots (lines) that connect to the edge. Literally every map has this though, so that's not really good enough (~).
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that dimfish, the sole creator of the analyzer, agreed with me about the bitty dot syndrome (he called it the bitty dot openness problem) before I even made the previously linked post (he actually made a post about it on his sc2mapster page a week before I made my post, but I never saw his until after I made mine). He proposed a new calculation of openness that would basically ignore the bitty dot syndrome, he called it "Playable Density". Perhaps I was wrong about the Average Openness being astronomical and unprecedented, but I would put my reputation on the line to claim that the Playable Density is well on it's way to being that bad.
I think Playable Density would be so much better to put a range of acceptability on.
Anyways, all that said, this map isn't nearly as imbalanced because of the openness as I thought it was at first (though I'm not convinced it's completely better).
You're doing better than many mapmakers though so don't worry. Keep it up!
|
Barrin's Post: + Show Spoiler +On December 04 2011 22:43 Barrin wrote:You probably saw me say my personal acceptable openness ranges are from 3.5 to 4.2. This map having 4.04 openness you probably thought you were will within (my) acceptable range; this contradicting what I said before the analyzer images were posting where I predicted the openness to be "unprecedented" and I think "astronomical". You got me! ^^ Actually no you didn't (sorry hehe ^^). I should have been more clear. "Bitty Dot Syndrome", aka "Bitty Dot Openness Problem"
I have noticed an interesting thing about the way the analyzer calculates the average openness. I believe it has the potential to be somewhat misleading. I am not very satisfied with accepting the "average openness" as an absolute this-is-how-it-is-PERIOD type of thing. - Me, 13 months ago.(click and read -^)
This map has more bitty dot syndrome than any other map I've ever seen. "but barrin! not all of those are bitty dots!" No. No they're not. They don't have to be. Show nested quote +The concept I'm talking about in this post can actually be extrapolated into a large scale. - Me, 13 months ago in the previously linked thread. Basically what I meant here is that the dots don't have to be small for the syndrome to still take effect. However, larger dots are definitely better than smaller dots. The larger the dot the better. There's a bunch of large dots here (though I would call at least 4 of them smaller dots). I don't know if I ever said it anywhere, but the best way to turn a dot into a non-dot is to connect it with the edge of the map air space. Kinda like you see here: + Show Spoiler +Connecting it to the edge like that also happens to be the cure for bitty dot syndrome... but really only if the "dot" (read: line) that's connected to is big. By the way, rocks are one way to connect a dot to the edge of the map (and if done right is almost always enough to cure minor bitty dot syndrome, unfortunately this is severe bitty dot syndrome). You might notice that the main-nat has these dots (lines) that connect to the edge. Literally every map has this though, so that's not really good enough (~).
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that dimfish, the sole creator of the analyzer, agreed with me about the bitty dot syndrome (he called it the bitty dot openness problem) before I even made the previously linked post (he actually made a post about it on his sc2mapster page a week before I made my post, but I never saw his until after I made mine). He proposed a new calculation of openness that would basically ignore the bitty dot syndrome, he called it "Playable Density". Perhaps I was wrong about the Average Openness being astronomical and unprecedented, but I would put my reputation on the line to claim that the Playable Density is well on it's way to being that bad. I think Playable Density would be so much better to put a range of acceptability on.
Anyways, all that said, this map isn't nearly as imbalanced because of the openness as I thought it was at first (though I'm not convinced it's completely better). You're doing better than many mapmakers though so don't worry. Keep it up!
Where I suppose these are Bitty Dots, I'm confused as to why they matter on this map. Most of the Bitty Dots are connected to one another by ramps, giving a height advantage to those atop the ramps. Thus, most would prefer not to engage with your opponent having a height advantage on you, therefore forcing most would-be engagements to happen later in more open/flat ground, or not to happen at all. This is seen in the countless games played on Metalopolis, with the high ground the golds reside on. If the golds were on the lower ground, and the Bitty Dots created by the cliffs were doodads or a pitfall instead, you would see a lot more engagements in the areas where the ramps are. However, due to the ramps giving a height advantage, most engagements happen entirely on the low ground or entirely on the high ground due to the high ground advantage, despite the ramps being wide.
Therefore, the only Bitty Dots that you are engaging around, on Havens Lagoon, in a single engagement as shown in your 28x28 map example, are the ones in front of the natural and the small one in front of the golds. The Bitty Dots in front of the naturals are big enough to provide the defender with a significantly shorter distance between the two natural entrances than to the attacker. Thus, they have a significant impact on engagements, even large 200/200 ones. So, with the only real Bitty Dot being in front of the golds, and rightfully so in my opinion, I'm quite confused as to why they really matter here.
You are quite the genius when it comes to map making, so I think I overlooked something you might have been trying to get across. Thus, could you clarify more so I could potentially avoid this in future maps? Would be of much thanks
EDIT: Grammar.
|
I think this map looks like a blast. Sure, it's a little different, but that's what makes it good. I'm tired of maps with bases only along the outer edges with a lone watch tower in the center. You fall into one of those categories, but your bases are mixed up enough to make me say, "OK."
You're up against a lot of people who are set in their ways; set in them for now anyway. Nobody wants to create a new set of strategies for a map that they won't play frequently. Until maps like this get more face-time, they'll get cut down because they don't follow the rules. Although, keep this up and you'll have my approval, at least.
Go test it! I would if I could. It looks like a lot of fun.
|
Mikey, this is a finalist in the Teamliquid Map-Making Contest, so it has already been decently tested. Though, you'll see several more games played on it during the next TLopen.
|
Well, I didn't know that, so I'm sorry! Get off my back already.
I've been out of the loop for too long. Consider everything I say for the next two months to be uninformed nonsense. I'm glad this map is seeing some action. I can't wait to watch some games on it. Fun!
|
Absolutely gorgeous map! I have been wanting to make a map with water on it like this! Mine is planned to be a Forest theme with murky water though, and I have no clue where to begin yet. Are you on of the map makers that streams? [edit - what is a bitty dot... ? Nvm]
|
I cam technically stream, but it does big down my pc quite a bit. This isn't too much of an issue though, so I've been considering it.
|
On December 06 2011 08:38 Timetwister22 wrote:Barrin's Post: + Show Spoiler +On December 04 2011 22:43 Barrin wrote:You probably saw me say my personal acceptable openness ranges are from 3.5 to 4.2. This map having 4.04 openness you probably thought you were will within (my) acceptable range; this contradicting what I said before the analyzer images were posting where I predicted the openness to be "unprecedented" and I think "astronomical". You got me! ^^ Actually no you didn't (sorry hehe ^^). I should have been more clear. "Bitty Dot Syndrome", aka "Bitty Dot Openness Problem"
I have noticed an interesting thing about the way the analyzer calculates the average openness. I believe it has the potential to be somewhat misleading. I am not very satisfied with accepting the "average openness" as an absolute this-is-how-it-is-PERIOD type of thing. - Me, 13 months ago.(click and read -^)
This map has more bitty dot syndrome than any other map I've ever seen. "but barrin! not all of those are bitty dots!" No. No they're not. They don't have to be. Show nested quote +The concept I'm talking about in this post can actually be extrapolated into a large scale. - Me, 13 months ago in the previously linked thread. Basically what I meant here is that the dots don't have to be small for the syndrome to still take effect. However, larger dots are definitely better than smaller dots. The larger the dot the better. There's a bunch of large dots here (though I would call at least 4 of them smaller dots). I don't know if I ever said it anywhere, but the best way to turn a dot into a non-dot is to connect it with the edge of the map air space. Kinda like you see here: + Show Spoiler +Connecting it to the edge like that also happens to be the cure for bitty dot syndrome... but really only if the "dot" (read: line) that's connected to is big. By the way, rocks are one way to connect a dot to the edge of the map (and if done right is almost always enough to cure minor bitty dot syndrome, unfortunately this is severe bitty dot syndrome). You might notice that the main-nat has these dots (lines) that connect to the edge. Literally every map has this though, so that's not really good enough (~).
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that dimfish, the sole creator of the analyzer, agreed with me about the bitty dot syndrome (he called it the bitty dot openness problem) before I even made the previously linked post (he actually made a post about it on his sc2mapster page a week before I made my post, but I never saw his until after I made mine). He proposed a new calculation of openness that would basically ignore the bitty dot syndrome, he called it "Playable Density". Perhaps I was wrong about the Average Openness being astronomical and unprecedented, but I would put my reputation on the line to claim that the Playable Density is well on it's way to being that bad. I think Playable Density would be so much better to put a range of acceptability on.
Anyways, all that said, this map isn't nearly as imbalanced because of the openness as I thought it was at first (though I'm not convinced it's completely better). You're doing better than many mapmakers though so don't worry. Keep it up! Where I suppose these are Bitty Dots, I'm confused as to why they matter on this map. Most of the Bitty Dots are connected to one another by ramps, giving a height advantage to those atop the ramps. Thus, most would prefer not to engage with your opponent having a height advantage on you, therefore forcing most would-be engagements to happen later in more open/flat ground, or not to happen at all. This is seen in the countless games played on Metalopolis, with the high ground the golds reside on. If the golds were on the lower ground, and the Bitty Dots created by the cliffs were doodads or a pitfall instead, you would see a lot more engagements in the areas where the ramps are. However, due to the ramps giving a height advantage, most engagements happen entirely on the low ground or entirely on the high ground due to the high ground advantage, despite the ramps being wide. Therefore, the only Bitty Dots that you are engaging around, on Havens Lagoon, in a single engagement as shown in your 28x28 map example, are the ones in front of the natural and the small one in front of the golds. The Bitty Dots in front of the naturals are big enough to provide the defender with a significantly shorter distance between the two natural entrances than to the attacker. Thus, they have a significant impact on engagements, even large 200/200 ones. So, with the only real Bitty Dot being in front of the golds, and rightfully so in my opinion, I'm quite confused as to why they really matter here. You are quite the genius when it comes to map making, so I think I overlooked something you might have been trying to get across. Thus, could you clarify more so I could potentially avoid this in future maps? Would be of much thanks EDIT: Grammar. Hmm, to clarify, mostly what I'm saying is that the analyzer is lying to you (misleading). The map's actual overall effective openness is significantly (perhaps drastically) higher than what the the number the analyzer is giving you in relation to what you've seen the analyzer give of most other maps.
Now, this is only a bad thing ASSUMING that a drastically high level of openness is inherently bad (imbalanced towards zerg). Perhaps it is not, but it is generally agreed that it is; I personally think it is (after the nat at least). I'd prefer not to get into this part too deeply, but hear me out ^^
A dot doesn't have to be a very small dot to take effect. However, the bigger a dot is the less it takes effect (exponentially less), did not mean to suggest otherwise - but it's nice to add it all up.
You have a great point about the dot (big blob) outside the nat... I have posted multiple times in the past saying that "things matter more early in the game" - I feel I have forgotten that in this case. That dot (big blob) outside natural is extremely significant. Come to think of it those long lines aren't far away either... this is... unusual... in an amazingly awesome way.
---
I wish to revoke all expressed doubt towards this map. I also wish to state that I am still sure this map's Playable Density is extremely high; however, the way the map's pathing is constructed seems to thoroughly counteract this (at least until the very late game, not necessarily a bad thing). Just wanna throw it out there that this map doesn't have a hint of circle syndrome - quite the opposite, something I love. This map is more badass than I realized, I'm actually very glad it's getting the attention it deserves...
|
Yes, now I do understand better. Thanks for clarifying, and of course, thanks for the support
|
|
|
|