EPT[D] Mapmaking Progression Philosophy
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
In my experience (though this is just my experience), you need a very solid UNDERSTANDING of the game in order to make a very solid map. Like you so elegantly stated, we don't need to know how to swing, but we need to know how a swing works, what kinds of different swings there are, and all that good stuff. In my eyes, what a mapmaker needs is knowledge, not mechanics. In other words, a good map-maker has to know the ins and outs of pretty much everything that can happen on a map, which is a crushingly huge amount of information. There are the obvious 'range' issues (seige, blink, warp ins probably being the three obvious ones), but then there are the very subtle intricacies to every map that range from "obvious" to "obscure" (drop dynamics to unit pathing to building placement [and not just FFE]). Obviously this mammoth amount of knowledge is not physically possible to acquire in the scope of one, ten, or possibly even a hundred maps. Moreover, the state of the meta-game limits the accepted innovations that can be made without frightening players (a HUGE part to making a good map is making it accommodating). Now, much of this may be restating what you said in different words, and if the overlap is too extreme, I apologize. But what I am getting at is what you said, in order for communication to abound between mappers, there must be some semblance of knowledge going around. My advice to potential map-desingers is to make a very simple map with a very simple dynamic, and try playing it. Don't bother with unnecessary aesthetics, at the end of the day, these are (mostly) irrelevant to good game-play. If something is fundamentally lacking, be open to asking people who know more about the game for advice, or even for them to help teach you. If you design a gorgeous map, but it doesn't play well, it won't bode well for your mapping career. There is only so much make-up you can smear on something ugly before people pick up on the flaws. Be bold, but be very aware of your own limitations, and above all, do not be afraid to come foreword, and ask people, players, or mappers for help. Do not be afraid to make "ugly" test maps, or wondering aloud how a certain dynamic would work in a certain situation. Map-making is much like anything else. If you are a one-man-missle, you can only achieve so much before you reach your limitations. But if you reach out and admit ignorance, you will grow. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
though i just dont see how much longer the mapping community can continue like it is before sc2 gameplay wise gets figured out to perfection like in bw, where every map is the same and any difference is immediately shunned / no play time. and not only that, but pretty much every layout has been done, and like i just said, the ones that are truly different wont work at the professional level. the only reason mappers should continue is for paint jobs. (but we still got another year or so before its over.) im a little negative nancy here but thats just my opinion. | ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
On January 25 2012 15:14 WniO wrote: good read, i remember you talking about that earlier and could see myself falling for the bad strategy many times. though i just dont see how much longer the mapping community can continue like it is before sc2 gameplay wise gets figured out to perfection like in bw, where every map is the same and any difference is immediately shunned / no play time. and not only that, but pretty much every layout has been done, and like i just said, the ones that are truly different wont work at the professional level. the only reason mappers should continue is for paint jobs. (but we still got another year or so before its over.) im a little negative nancy here but thats just my opinion. While I somewhat agree, I think the new HotS (and then the toss expansion too) units will change the dynamics enough to allow for some creativity. Definitely zerg will get some fun new map tricks with swarm lords, and blizzard is apparently adding falling rocks (attack an area to create rocks that I believe can be destroyed after they fall) which adds some more interesting ideas. Hopefully, at least, we can keep some inspiration going. | ||
|
Pocky52
United States463 Posts
Personally, from just reading the feedback that others provide on other maps, I take that feedback into account when making my maps. For example, without seeing the feedback on specific maps in regards to Circle Syndrome, I would have never understood it from any of the guides or discussions posted. Individual feedback on maps guides the experience that one gains. I am not saying that experience is only gained from creating and getting feedback, one can play on different maps, and analyze play on other maps, including their own, to understand how gameplay works. By simply creating a lot of dfferent maps, like you said, an individual can learn what happens if something is one way versus another and so on, however, an individual is also limited to their own understanding. Like you stated above, it is pointless to expect someone to understand something that they do not understand, so having them analyze their own maps, they will overlook things that they wouldn't consider thoughtworthy about before. Feedback from others provides this knowledge, and thus I think that it is necessary to create a growth of knowledge between everyone. Creating tons of maps, will eventually lead to a greater understanding, but it will not solve the circumstance where one will not ever be able to incorporate an aspect into their map if they do not understand it. This devolves into the question: how will one know when they are knowledgeable and have a solid grasp on the game? While one may think that they have considered all aspects simply because they cannot think of anything else, that does not necessarilly mean they have a solid grasp or understanding of this knowledge. It is through feedback that experience comes, and then an understanding of the game. If one has the drive to be a succesful mapmaker, then they will be open-minded and receptive towards feedback. More importantly, they will make efforts to understand. If the more experienced mapmakers want to incorporate new minds, that can potentially bring new ideas with them into the community, they must strive to provide the unexperienced ones with knowledge, so as to allow them to reach a sufficient level of individual understanding. What you consider basic, and what a less experienced or knowledgeable mapmaker consider basic can be vastly different. Like you said, the complexities may get in the way of both explaining and understanding. For this reason, I believe that it is up to not only the receptor to accomadate the intake of new knowledge, but also for the source to provide it in such a way that the receptor can recieve it. While you say you will stop going over basic things, you do not explain what these basic issues are. I would also like to state that if someone is seeking advice, then they are seeking to improve either their skills or a specific map. Even if that mapmaker has no intentions on implementing those changes, or continuing to work on new maps, they will gain an understanding and knowledge, even if it is unintentional, that they can provide the community. Likewise the community can learn simply from looking at that advice and apply it to their own maps. The fact of the matter is that when feedback is given to those maps, it provides others with a source of knowledge as well. Like in a scientific revolution, we must work to expand our knowledge, and this is only possible through the consideration of multiple perspectives, provided by various members of the community, which also requires the constant influx of new perspectives in order to evolve. As such, it is the responsibility of our say species, our community, to evolve and grow and thus we must foster the bringing in of new blood, and provide them a basis upon which to form their knowledge. I do not disagree with the points you make, about gaining knowledge in a process, and about the necessity in continuing to push this growth and gain knowledge. Quite the contrary really, as I believe that it is a fundamental step. More so, I am discussing everything else. Beyond saying that growing as a mapmaker is a process, you say that you are going to stop providing feedback to the imbeciles who do not understand it. However, the reason they do not understand that knowledge is not discussed. In your argument that a group of less knowledgable people can provide, the same knowledge in a more concise manner, due to the nature of them being less knowledgable, we must consider where these people get their knowledge. If, as a community, we expect to share knowledge and improve all of ourselves, then we must compromise and work together in order to provide a source of knowledge upon which to grow that knowledge. All in all, my point is that you must continue to provide feedback even if some of it might seem to be in vain. Or you must provide what the basic knowledge you think one should know is. I understand that this is probably not the point that you are trying to make, but given that your main point seems to be about the fact that mapmaking is a progression, and that you digressed into the issue of people's understanding, I feel that my point is relevant. At least as much as your point that a mapmaking team can be extremely helpful, (which only lends to my point about the necessity of having a group and multiple perspectives to create new knowledge) is to how mapmaking is a progression. That being said, would you like to take a look at my new map? + Show Spoiler + Just kidding ^_^ Edit: Spent more than an hour writing that response :/ | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
On January 25 2012 15:30 Pocky52 wrote: Don't get me wrong, but for what us newbies don't know, often times we can learn a lot simply from feedback that is provided by the more experienced mapmaker. I mean this in the sense that there are things that the newbie will understand, but will overlook, or miss when they make their map, but if someone else simply tells them to change so and so, they can learn a lot from that advice. I guess what I'm saying is that part of the experience that you speak of comes from the feedback recieved from more knowledgable members of the community. Personally, from just reading the feedback that others provide on other maps, I take that feedback into account when making my maps. For example, without seeing the feedback on specific maps in regards to Circle Syndrome, I would have never understood it from any of the guides or discussions posted. Individual feedback on maps guides the experience that one gains. I am not saying that experience is only gained from creating and getting feedback, one can play on different maps, and analyze play on other maps, including their own, to understand how gameplay works. By simply creating a lot of dfferent maps, like you said, an individual can learn what happens if something is one way versus another and so on, however, an individual is also limited to their own understanding. Like you stated above, it is pointless to expect someone to understand something that they do not understand, so having them analyze their own maps, they will overlook things that they wouldn't consider thoughtworthy about before. Feedback from others provides this knowledge, and thus I think that it is necessary to create a growth of knowledge between everyone. Creating tons of maps, will eventually lead to a greater understanding, but it will not solve the circumstance where one will not ever be able to incorporate an aspect into their map if they do not understand it. This devolves into the question: how will one know when they are knowledgeable and have a solid grasp on the game? While one may think that they have considered all aspects simply because they cannot think of anything else, that does not necessarilly mean they have a solid grasp or understanding of this knowledge. It is through feedback that experience comes, and then an understanding of the game. If one has the drive to be a succesful mapmaker, then they will be open-minded and receptive towards feedback. More importantly, they will make efforts to understand. If the more experienced mapmakers want to incorporate new minds, that can potentially bring new ideas with them into the community, they must strive to provide the unexperienced ones with knowledge, so as to allow them to reach a sufficient level of individual understanding. What you consider basic, and what a less experienced or knowledgeable mapmaker consider basic can be vastly different. Like you said, the complexities may get in the way of both explaining and understanding. For this reason, I believe that it is up to not only the receptor to accomadate the intake of new knowledge, but also for the source to provide it in such a way that the receptor can recieve it. While you say you will stop going over basic things, you do not explain what these basic issues are. I would also like to state that if someone is seeking advice, then they are seeking to improve either their skills or a specific map. Even if that mapmaker has no intentions on implementing those changes, or continuing to work on new maps, they will gain an understanding and knowledge, even if it is unintentional, that they can provide the community. Likewise the community can learn simply from looking at that advice and apply it to their own maps. The fact of the matter is that when feedback is given to those maps, it provides others with a source of knowledge as well. Like in a scientific revolution, we must work to expand our knowledge, and this is only possible through the consideration of multiple perspectives, provided by various members of the community, which also requires the constant influx of new perspectives in order to evolve. As such, it is the responsibility of our say species, our community, to evolve and grow and thus we must foster the bringing in of new blood, and provide them a basis upon which to form their knowledge. I do not disagree with the points you make, about gaining knowledge in a process, and about the necessity in continuing to push this growth and gain knowledge. Quite the contrary really, as I believe that it is a fundamental step. More so, I am discussing everything else. Beyond saying that growing as a mapmaker is a process, you say that you are going to stop providing feedback to the imbeciles who do not understand it. However, the reason they do not understand that knowledge is not discussed. In your argument that a group of less knowledgable people can provide, the same knowledge in a more concise manner, due to the nature of them being less knowledgable, we must consider where these people get their knowledge. If, as a community, we expect to share knowledge and improve all of ourselves, then we must compromise and work together in order to provide a source of knowledge upon which to grow that knowledge. All in all, my point is that you must continue to provide feedback even if some of it might seem to be in vain. Or you must provide what the basic knowledge you think one should know is. I understand that this is probably not the point that you are trying to make, but given that your main point seems to be about the fact that mapmaking is a progression, and that you digressed into the issue of people's understanding, I feel that my point is relevant. At least as much as your point that a mapmaking team can be extremely helpful, (which only lends to my point about the necessity of having a group and multiple perspectives to create new knowledge) is to how mapmaking is a progression. That being said, would you like to take a look at my new map? + Show Spoiler + Just kidding ^_^ Edit: Spent more than an hour writing that response :/ You kind of hit on what I said (great response btw, enjoyed reading it). On one hand though, one small problem with what you said is that if mappers are going to mappers for advice, that's not enough, as there are alot of low-level mappers that don't know that much about the game itself. The problem with mappers is that they know how to build a swingset and all that good stuff, but they might not actually be able to swing very well. It's a limited knowledge thing, where specialization breeds specialization. That sounds silly, but if mappers are only asking mappers, than it could be this problem where you just go deeper into a rabbit-hole of things that seem good to mappers cause it makes logistical sense, but doesn't pan out in gameplay well. For that reason, expanding your knowledge and putting yourself out there also includes going to high level players and being like "yo, teach me about the game, plox". More mappers need to admit that while they might know alot about maps, they don't know enough about the game, and this means they need to go to good PLAYERS not just good MAPPERS for advice. Though, again, loved your take on it. Very much the way I think as well | ||
|
Pocky52
United States463 Posts
On January 25 2012 15:58 DYEAlabaster wrote: You kind of hit on what I said (great response btw, enjoyed reading it). On one hand though, one small problem with what you said is that if mappers are going to mappers for advice, that's not enough, as there are alot of low-level mappers that don't know that much about the game itself. The problem with mappers is that they know how to build a swingset and all that good stuff, but they might not actually be able to swing very well. It's a limited knowledge thing, where specialization breeds specialization. That sounds silly, but if mappers are only asking mappers, than it could be this problem where you just go deeper into a rabbit-hole of things that seem good to mappers cause it makes logistical sense, but doesn't pan out in gameplay well. For that reason, expanding your knowledge and putting yourself out there also includes going to high level players and being like "yo, teach me about the game, plox". More mappers need to admit that while they might know alot about maps, they don't know enough about the game, and this means they need to go to good PLAYERS not just good MAPPERS for advice. Though, again, loved your take on it. Very much the way I think as well Ha yes, I very much agreed with your response as well, I was going to respond to it, but figured I had spent enough time writing for a bit... I totally agree with what you say though, it is about sharing knowledge. Knowledge comes from experience and those with an understanding of that knowledge. My point was simply that only a certain amount of understanding can come from one's self and their experience. The rest, or at least bridges that provide access to the rest must come from those with more knowledge or understanding. I consider the players, or at least high level players to have a greater understanding of the game compared to most, and thus they can also be sources of this feedback. Like you said, if one tries to go it alone, they will be limited by themselves. I also talked about the importance of multiple perspectives, which isn't exactly how you're talking about it, but I would include feedback from non-mappers to be just as important. I'm glad I didn't write that whole thing just to find that no one agreed at least to a degree ^^ | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
Disclaimer: Marketing/advertising and a team to fall back on go a long way to being a successful mapmaker and should not be underestimated. EDIT: My comment is directed towards the ambitious. If you just want to make some maps and don't care much for having them played in something like GSL and have uniquely different goals that's perfectly fine too 8) | ||
|
ihasaKAROT
Netherlands4730 Posts
/sadface | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On January 25 2012 17:27 ihasaKAROT wrote: So cloud kingdom isnt in GSL cus of the rocks and flying shark? /sadface By proxy it is! The rocks and flying shark are in there because of ESV! | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On January 25 2012 17:24 prodiG wrote: ... Agree with this completely. Basically when I create maps I have a group of friends (about 6 or so) that I know on SC2 that range from Diamond to Masters that I pretty much have to force to play a round or two on my maps and get feedback from them. It'd be so much easier to be with a group of map makers and be able to hop in, play with them, and get feedback on the spot. Most of my friends I play with now just say random shit like "Too many chokes" or "Forcefields OP" which just doesn't help at all. I was completely surprised when my map Darkness Falls won the IPL map tournament and was then selected to be in their map pool because it's a map I did all by myself with very little feedback. Hell, even when I posted it on TL I think I only got about 5 responses and then the thread slowly died off. Hanging out in the MoTM Skype channel gives some good feedback if I ask in there, as well as getting plenty of feedback from IPL now helps a ton. I've been tempted to on my next map I make to name the thread like "(2) MapName NOT made by ProdiG" just to see if it gets a lot more views on it because it seems if there is a topic in the map forum that says "xxx made by ProdiG" it gets a million views where my poor piece of work gets ~5.  | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On January 25 2012 17:46 SidianTheBard wrote: I've been tempted to on my next map I make to name the thread like "(2) MapName NOT made by ProdiG" just to see if it gets a lot more views on it because it seems if there is a topic in the map forum that says "xxx made by ProdiG" it gets a million views where my poor piece of work gets ~5. The power of a brand name  | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
Or should I say, they have their limitations, specifications, regarding what is an 'acceptable' map. What we end up having are many maps being pumped out that look great in pictures, but in reality, are so very similar to each other. To use barrin's analogy: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5eQ52.png) The dotted lines represents what we need as the spread of knowledge, but instead the majority is clumped together in one corner. So then, how do you grow as a map maker if you only choose to design within these limits? What are you doing to help the map making community, as a whole, advance beyond circle/same-map syndrome? And of course, with SC2 as it is, is that even a valid question - does the game itself even allow for that? I'd like to think so, and I'd like to see mappers go out on that limb to push these organizations to try new and unique layouts, rather than the organizations limiting you. | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
On January 25 2012 13:19 Barrin wrote: Experience. A competitive mapmaker without a great deal of experience (watching other people play counts) under his belt is truly lost. This point cannot be stressed enough actually. Your mechanics and be piss poor and you can be rusty as hell, but if your raw experience with the game can't easily put and keep you in Diamond then you probably have no business making top-tier competitive maps. Quite funny, considering how many platinum mapmakers there are out there | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
| ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
On January 25 2012 17:46 SidianTheBard wrote: Agree with this completely. Basically when I create maps I have a group of friends (about 6 or so) that I know on SC2 that range from Diamond to Masters that I pretty much have to force to play a round or two on my maps and get feedback from them. It'd be so much easier to be with a group of map makers and be able to hop in, play with them, and get feedback on the spot. Most of my friends I play with now just say random shit like "Too many chokes" or "Forcefields OP" which just doesn't help at all. Diam/Master (and bronze ) test group the way it works for me. Although you're right that it would be cool to have some kind of map testing channel on skype or B.net. Maybe make a TL thread about it ?Edit : Plus, this would help reduce the discrepancies between freelance and team mapmakers, in that we would have a reliable and more skilled testbase than what we usually have, maybe not what a team can achieve, but still something really useful. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
As a new mapper (less than 4 months for SC2) -- it is quite an overwhelming task to take on. Especially when your play level is low (such as mine -- Silver). I find one of the hardest things right now is trying to come up with original ideas and layouts. This is particularly stressful as a mapmaker trying to learn (and indeed make a name at some point) when I see many maps that utilize the same layouts (or nearly the same) with changes amounting to whether a particular area is raised or lowered ground -- but I don't see it called out often enough to believe my own line of thinking when I do see it. To compliment this idea is how certains widgets (such as doodads) that do affect the gameplay by taking up space/preventing unit movement is regarded as secondary to the initial layout (which I personally disagree with if those same widgets provide the desired effect without undesired secondary effects). Furthermore, trying to find resources to use as a means of learning is difficult as well (I attribute this just as much to the seeming disorganization of the "Mapmaking Links Compilation" thread as anything--which while organized, does not feel appropriately upkept). SC2 mapster is wonderful when you know what you are searching for, but quite honestly many things that new mapmakers will struggle with just simply do not have good explanations posted on the web right now, or the existing explanations are incomplete. An example of this would be my personal struggle with the mini-map glitch, and how to fix it when you are using modified texture sets and light sets (I intend to write up a tutorial on how to bypass this within the next week or 2 fyi accompanying an explanation of what had happened). Or for instance issues with gamma settings and if there is an appropriate way to fix that aside from using default light sets (so you retain the "feel" you want for your map). Mai Point: I by no means am advocating that someone take on the gigantic task of writing up a user manual for the editor (although if it exists, kudos and I will buy you a slice of pizza or food of your choice!). But I do think we should be more prolific about organizing places we can go to for learning (such as making Skype channels and in game channels easy to find and well known) -- for instance, I have no idea what the skype channel for MotM is -- but I would love to get on it sometime.This should help alleviate more experienced mappers task of sharing knowledge a little. | ||
| ||
