|
On November 03 2012 07:31 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 07:21 Fatam wrote:
Regardless of which map you want to discuss (TDA, Antiga, etc.), I think it's worth noting that just because a map has matchup %s that are close to 50, doesn't make it a well-designed or fun map. Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective? I consider Antiga fun, OxyGenesis doesn't. There it ends, little more to debate a subjective difference opinion. What's next? Debating if Angelina Jolie or Megan Fox is prettier?
Your arguments amount to saying "most people don't know what they're talking about".
|
No, his arguments amount to saying "different people can have different valid opinions about stuff". He doesn't claim that the community is wrong, he says that it dissents. Learn to read.
|
Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective?
Ah, but there are some subjective things that the vast majority of players agree upon, which makes them (for all intents and purposes)"objective". Since after all, Blizzard is concerned with what the vast majority wants.
- Early/midgame bases that you can hardly ever take are bad (4th on Antiga). Getting stuck on 3 bases or less every game isn't fun. (people like variety, you can't argue against that)
- Some people may be ok with TDA as a whole, but most protoss' dislike it because getting stuck in 4gate wars every single time isn't fun (again, people like variety in their games).
I think it might be slightly harder to make an argument against some of the other maps, but with those 2 it's just too easy.
|
On November 03 2012 11:14 Fatam wrote:Ah, but there are some subjective things that the vast majority of players agree upon, which makes them (for all intents and purposes)"objective". Since after all, Blizzard is concerned with what the vast majority wants. - Early/midgame bases that you can hardly ever take are bad (4th on Antiga). Getting stuck on 3 bases or less every game isn't fun. (people like variety, you can't argue against that) - Some people may be ok with TDA as a whole, but most protoss' dislike it because getting stuck in 4gate wars every single time isn't fun (again, people like variety in their games). I think it might be slightly harder to make an argument against some of the other maps, but with those 2 it's just too easy.
Here's the thing, you talk about variety, but no other map encourages 4-gates like TDA. No other map makes for as excruciating a late game as Antiga Shipyard. They, in a way, actually add diversity to the map pool. The games on the map, in and of themselves, might not be diverse, but among the grander scheme(the whole map pool), they bring it to the table.
Note though, that diversity doesn't necessarily equal fun, I personally dislike both of those maps, but in large part because they're old and played out, and not so much the way the map plays.
Fun is a very subjective thing, but Blizzard's latest mapmaking efforts try to encapsulate it as best as their team can manage. Say what you want about their maps, pull as many statistics as you want and cry imba as much as you want, but I'd rather watch 100 games on Howling Peaks, Korhal City, Star Station, Akilon Wastes and Newkirk City, as opposed to 100 games on Whirlwind, Daybreak, Abyssal City, Entombed Valley, Shakuras Plateau, and Antiga Shipyard. The former set of maps has a design that goes beyond the focus of balance, to try to make for exciting gameplay, whereas the latter set is comprised of maps that are either woefully played out, or standard to the point that they might as well be. Cloud Kingdom falls neatly between the two categories, so I leave that out of my sights.
This is all my opinion, but I happen to think it an enlightened one, take it for what you will.
|
I don't get it, you are arguing with me in order to agree with me. lol
edit: and what I meant by "variety" is variety of games within the same map. e.g. you don't want every PvP on TDA to be a 4gate. If 4gate (or whatever strategy) is a little bit favored on a certain map, that's fine, but when the map -forces- it, that's different.
Of course, there will always be the few people that love 4gate wars every time, but they are certainly in the minority.
If restaurant A serves nothing but spam (the food equivalent of 4gate), and restaurant B serves steak, fish, vegetables, all sorts of cool dishes.. of course there will be the minority that really likes spam, but most people will choose restaurant B.
Can you objectively say that a perfectly-cooked steak is better than spam? Nope. But do we need something to be 100% objectively correct to move forward? I don't think so.
|
On November 03 2012 12:07 Fatam wrote:
I don't get it, you are arguing with me in order to agree with me. lol
edit: and what I meant by "variety" is variety of games within the same map. e.g. you don't want every PvP on TDA to be a 4gate. If 4gate (or whatever strategy) is a little bit favored on a certain map, that's fine, but when the map -forces- it, that's different.
Of course, there will always be the few people that love 4gate wars every time, but they are certainly in the minority.
If restaurant A serves nothing but spam (the food equivalent of 4gate), and restaurant B serves steak, fish, vegetables, all sorts of cool dishes.. of course there will be the minority that really likes spam, but most people will choose restaurant B.
Can you objectively say that a perfectly-cooked steak is better than spam? Nope. But do we need something to be 100% objectively correct to move forward? I don't think so.
Well, that's the thing, we're sick and tired of 4-gate wars now, but if we'd gone this whole time without a single map that allowed it to happen, it might be exciting to see such a game, as it all comes down to knife-edge control. This is similar to how people are getting sick of super-macro NR20 maps like Metropolis, but in the early life of the game they were refreshing to see, since they didn't exist yet, and long macro games were rare. What would be ideal would be to have a map pool that is totally diverse in this regard. Have a map that allows for rushes, have a map that pushes games into the late stage, have a map that rewards positioning and flanking, cheese, etc., etc., and you'd have a more exciting variety. Of course, having maps that allow for multiple styles is important, so part of our challenge is to make maps that bend toward a certain style of play, but allow for skilled players to do with it what they want. Only a very small portion of community maps made thus far have touched upon this golden zone of mapmaking, by small I mean less than 10. Our skills haven't developed enough yet, maps are still too ambiguous as to what they are(I actually wonder if this is the right word). I digress, but it's an overarching point.
|
On November 03 2012 12:34 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 12:07 Fatam wrote:
I don't get it, you are arguing with me in order to agree with me. lol
edit: and what I meant by "variety" is variety of games within the same map. e.g. you don't want every PvP on TDA to be a 4gate. If 4gate (or whatever strategy) is a little bit favored on a certain map, that's fine, but when the map -forces- it, that's different.
Of course, there will always be the few people that love 4gate wars every time, but they are certainly in the minority.
If restaurant A serves nothing but spam (the food equivalent of 4gate), and restaurant B serves steak, fish, vegetables, all sorts of cool dishes.. of course there will be the minority that really likes spam, but most people will choose restaurant B.
Can you objectively say that a perfectly-cooked steak is better than spam? Nope. But do we need something to be 100% objectively correct to move forward? I don't think so. Well, that's the thing, we're sick and tired of 4-gate wars now, but if we'd gone this whole time without a single map that allowed it to happen, it might be exciting to see such a game, as it all comes down to knife-edge control. This is similar to how people are getting sick of super-macro NR20 maps like Metropolis, but in the early life of the game they were refreshing to see, since they didn't exist yet, and long macro games were rare. What would be ideal would be to have a map pool that is totally diverse in this regard. Have a map that allows for rushes, have a map that pushes games into the late stage, have a map that rewards positioning and flanking, cheese, etc., etc., and you'd have a more exciting variety. Of course, having maps that allow for multiple styles is important, so part of our challenge is to make maps that bend toward a certain style of play, but allow for skilled players to do with it what they want. Only a very small portion of community maps made thus far have touched upon this golden zone of mapmaking, by small I mean less than 10. Our skills haven't developed enough yet, maps are still too ambiguous as to what they are(I actually wonder if this is the right word). I digress, but it's an overarching point.
But you've sidestepped the issue of balance and left out the time horizon for when a map gets figured out, which could be pretty quickly depending on the map, no matter how exciting it is at first. Even if it allows new strategies, once it becomes clear that there's a clear advantage in a matchup, or only one best way to play the map, it won't be interesting to watch anymore at all for exactly the reasons you say the old maps aren't interesting.
If it's too easy to figure out a map, then it's imbalanced even before it is fully solved, and that must be avoided. However, you could argue that a map that eventually gets solved and imba after a few months is still a map worth having for those few months because it was fair and it was fresh during its lifetime. I wouldn't mind that style of map rotation, if it was possible. But clearly the SC2 scene hasn't had that mentality or reality.
In that case, the trend has been towards "macro" maps because of the 3rd base balance problem. At the same time the game evolved and, inevitably, macro play became safer. That gets us to where we are now and experimentation with "unfair" things seems more attractive. But only at this point is it possible.
With a metagame reset, anything goes (to a point) and a new map rotation paradigm might allow us to focus on interesting maps over balanced maps. I hope this happens, but until it does you can't fault the trend of fair/macro maps to establish a baseline for what works. Within that paradigm, it's the job of pro players to push the boundaries of the metagame to create interesting games, not so much the mapmakers to create interesting departures from expectation.
On the point of beta maps, I agree that it's better to test the limits of the new balance with extremes first, but they should have included "solid" proven maps from the start as well. But we have that now so whatevs, we'll see what comes of it. I don't think the SC2 team is large enough and has enough resources to analyze every variable in isolation, so I don't blame them for intuition, scattergun, and triage.
|
IMO I think that the maximum a map should be on the ladder is 2 seasons(4 months) with half the map pool being switched out every season. We have more than enough good maps and mapmakers to choose 4 each season. We have had the current WOL map pool for too long with the next change coming in 2 months time. It is starting to get boring playing on the same maps all the time.
|
On November 03 2012 15:07 Bwaaaa wrote:
IMO I think that the maximum a map should be on the ladder is 2 seasons(4 months) with half the map pool being switched out every season. We have more than enough good maps and mapmakers to choose 4 each season. We have had the current WOL map pool for too long with the next change coming in 2 months time. It is starting to get boring playing on the same maps all the time.
I think a map on average every 2 weeks is fine overall, but just for ladder I think that's a bit much. I'd say about one new ladder map per month and one new non-ladder map per month for tournaments.
|
maps should change every season
maybe not all of them but like a half
this way we would have an awesome map rotation, just like in BW and then different playstyles can be forced which would benefit the game so much !!!
its not even hard Blizzard.. wtf happened to this company 
|
On November 03 2012 17:23 Sinedd wrote:maps should change every season maybe not all of them but like a half this way we would have an awesome map rotation, just like in BW and then different playstyles can be forced which would benefit the game so much !!! its not even hard Blizzard.. wtf happened to this company
Absolutely nothing, at least not recently. This is exactly the same that happens in wow whenever a new expansion is coming up. All their reassources gets focused on that and nothing happens in the main game for a good few months. Keep in mind that this is despite the fact that WOW have a much larger budget than Starcraft.
Critizese it all you want but reality is this have been standard Blizzard procedure for over 5 years.
|
Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because it was supposed to be a 4 spawn map but it had to be made forced cross to 'fix' it. The same goes for Entombed. Note that I am saying nothing about the gameplay of those maps, there are certain matchups that I really like on both of them. Any map maker worth their salt would be able to look at the overviews and say that certain spawns wont work. When a map doesn't play out how it was designed to play out you can say that it is objectively a poorly designed map.
I completely agree with Eat The Path. We can look at the old beta maps with rose tinted spectacles and say 'hey, I remember some great games on that map, maybe it wasn't so bad after all' but we're only thinking that way because we've been stuck with the same maps for sooooooo long. I don't think Blizzard maps are terrible, but they have shown several times that they don't fully grasp what it takes to make a tournament level competitive SC2 map. Close spawns is BASIC. It's one of the first things you think about when you start off down the road of map making.
Proper map rotation in HotS is crucial.
|
On November 03 2012 09:40 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 07:31 SiskosGoatee wrote:On November 03 2012 07:21 Fatam wrote:
Regardless of which map you want to discuss (TDA, Antiga, etc.), I think it's worth noting that just because a map has matchup %s that are close to 50, doesn't make it a well-designed or fun map. Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective? I consider Antiga fun, OxyGenesis doesn't. There it ends, little more to debate a subjective difference opinion. What's next? Debating if Angelina Jolie or Megan Fox is prettier? Your arguments amount to saying "most people don't know what they're talking about". No, my argument amounts to 'People all disagree about what makes good maps and they are for the most part very self centred people who seem to think that because others subjectively disagree they don't know what they are talking about.
I can understand that someone thinks TDA is a very good map if that person likes to 4gate vs 4gate, doesn't make that person not knowing what he or she is talking about, just different things to like in this game. And say what you will about 4gate vs 4gate, but it's the embodiment of 'pure skill, pure micro', there is no luck involved whatsoever and it has a very high skill ceiling and the player with the better control will win.
On November 03 2012 11:14 Fatam wrote:Ah, but there are some subjective things that the vast majority of players agree upon, which makes them (for all intents and purposes)"objective". Since after all, Blizzard is concerned with what the vast majority wants. I'm pretty sure this thread has shown that things aren't as objective and universally agreed upon as some people like to think.
- Early/midgame bases that you can hardly ever take are bad (4th on Antiga). Getting stuck on 3 bases or less every game isn't fun. (people like variety, you can't argue against that) Getting stuck on 3 bases isn't fun no. But antiga makes it hard, not impossible, to get a fourth, that's skill ceiling. To capture a fourth on antiga relies on maintaining map control and having good map awareness. Which is why I personally like the map because multi pronged aggression and map awareness are some of my strengths in this game to contrast my poor macro. I like antiga because I'm good on that map, especially in ZvT I find it hard to lose, to matter the spawns.
Some people may be ok with TDA as a whole, but most protoss' dislike it because getting stuck in 4gate wars every single time isn't fun (again, people like variety in their games). See above, some people like 4gate wars and I can definitely see why since it's one of the most ultimate tests of micro in this game.
I think it might be slightly harder to make an argument against some of the other maps, but with those 2 it's just too easy. And yet I provided counter arguments and I'm someone who likes the fact that the fourth is hard to take on antiga and relies on map awareness and correct army positioning and splitting to retain as well as being proactive with killing rocks. I like hard to secure bases in general because it plays to my strengths, that's all. I do not like easy to secure bases because it doesn't play to my strengths, I'm a very impatient player that needs to do something, if there's nothing to do I start to just attack people when I shouldn't into well fortified positions thereby costing me games.
|
@ what Oxy said - There is something I heard someone say a while back which I thought was very true, concerning the "rose-colored glasses" syndrome and maps.
"Just because a map has had great games on it, doesn't necessarily make it good. If lots of great players play lots of games on the map, it is inevitable that great games will happen, regardless of the quality of the map"
(I'm paraphrasing a bit)
That quote doesn't completely address what we were talking about, but I thought it should be added on real quick to what Oxy was saying.
Anyway, I'm all for agreeing to disagree here and moving on w/ the discussion, as I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.
|
On November 04 2012 07:42 Fatam wrote:
@ what Oxy said - There is something I heard someone say a while back which I thought was very true, concerning the "rose-colored glasses" syndrome and maps.
"Just because a map has had great games on it, doesn't necessarily make it good. If lots of great players play lots of games on the map, it is inevitable that great games will happen, regardless of the quality of the map"
(I'm paraphrasing a bit) Yap, and I think barely any great games happen on say Ohana and a lot of them happen on Antiga. And what you consider a great game is subjective, not objective, simple as that. If scrappy situations, base races, expansions constantly dying is not your take on a 'great game', I can't discuss that then, that's subjective. However I do believe such games are more likely on Antiga and less likely on Ohana. I mean, let's list why I consider Ohana to be one of the worst maps ever in competitive play, even worse than Kulas Ravine in my book:
- The map is small
- There is basically no 'choice' to make for what base you want to take, no risk reward ratio in it, there is basically only one expansion progression and anything except that is almost ninja expanding
- There are too few bases
- the third and natural are both too easy to keep
- there's not a lot of terrain to use creatively
- it's bad map for blink play and reapers and just in general harass based play
- it's a good map for mech, I think mech is about the most boring thing on the planet and I don't enjoy watching it.
As you can see, all these things are quite subjective.
Anyway, I'm all for agreeing to disagree here and moving on w/ the discussion, as I don't think either of us is going to convince the other. I'm sorry, but if what makes a map good is objective or subjective is very much part of the discussion. Whichever it is basically decides the entire course of action.
|
I don't know why you're strawman'ing Ohana. I never claimed that Ohana was a good map.
I'm sorry, but if what makes a map good is objective or subjective is very much part of the discussion. Whichever it is basically decides the entire course of action.
Well if you're going to disagree w/ what most of us consider good maps (lots of variety of gameplay/openings are viable on the map, no race has a disadvantage, etc.) and can't be convinced otherwise, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you're going to continue to think TDA and Antiga are examples of good maps and we are going to continue to think that they aren't, then that's an impassable divide. All we can do is discuss -what to do- based on the fact that people disagree on what makes a good map.
|
Maybe we could spruce up this a little.... Now, ideally the best thing for balance and keeping players interested would be a map pool of 8 maps per season, (1v1 maps.)
***When the season ends, replace 4 of the unpopular maps with 4 NEW ONES.
- Have the community as well as blizzard hold the ^new maps^ in a PTR ----> a season AHEAD of time to make sure they will be fit for the real ladder. That way it keeps things fresh and keeping the voting routine would allow people content with playing on the old maps.
- I also think we should do what Call of Duty does and other games in terms of keeping the great maps fresh. So lets pretend Daybreak is by far the favorite map, you would introduce a new texture/look to that map at the end of the season if that map stays. (Mar Sara Desert or something) That way the maps that do stay could feel new when the new season starts, instead of just BLAH no new maps guess ill try to climb the ladder a few notches.
probably just dreaming but you cant say im the only one... 4 new maps GAHHH so fun.
|
On November 04 2012 09:10 Fatam wrote:
I don't know why you're strawman'ing Ohana. I never claimed that Ohana was a good map. That is my point, you haven't, others have, that's why it is subjective Ohana was second in the TLMC showing an overwhelming confidence in it from both the community and the staff.
Well if you're going to disagree w/ what most of us consider good maps (lots of variety of gameplay/openings are viable on the map, no race has a disadvantage, etc.) and can't be convinced otherwise, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you're going to continue to think TDA and Antiga are examples of good maps and we are going to continue to think that they aren't, then that's an impassable divide. All we can do is discuss -what to do- based on the fact that people disagree on what makes a good map.
No, I'm saying that no one agrees on what is a good map? The mapmaking community isn't united. Have you read this thread? Various people have come forward to defend these maps.
What I'm saying is that the mapmaking community is at its core divided on what are good maps and what maps aren't, everyone disagrees because it's subjective. And people call each other 'having no idea of what good maps are' left and right for disagreeing.
|
Right. So obviously there has to be a voting system (or something similar), since we will never be united as to what a good map is.
edit: what we SHOULD do, imo, is make sure the voting system is better than it might otherwise be. Where voters see the maps, let's figure out how to put emphasis on the gameplay of the map, so we don't have a case of "prettiest overview wins". Because I think we can at least agree that a map's gameplay is more important than the looks. (regardless of what you or me might consider good gameplay)
1) Make it so you can't see the small thumbnail-sized map overviews, you HAVE to click a link and the link goes to a full-size imgur overview of the map. Or have the full-sized image inside a spoiler tag (probably best).
2) A brief bullet list, huge and bolded, from the mapmaker himself. It would list the map features he wants people to know about. We should put a limit on the amount of items that can be listed, maybe 5, so that some people don't hog the page by putting 20 things.
|
On November 04 2012 10:24 Fatam wrote:
Right. So obviously there has to be a voting system (or something similar), since we will never be united as to what a good map is.
edit: what we SHOULD do, imo, is make sure the voting system is better than it might otherwise be. Where voters see the maps, let's figure out how to put emphasis on the gameplay of the map, so we don't have a case of "prettiest overview wins". Because I think we can at least agree that a map's gameplay is more important than the looks. (regardless of what you or me might consider good gameplay)
1) Make it so you can't see the small thumbnail-sized map overviews, you HAVE to click a link and the link goes to a full-size imgur overview of the map. Or have the full-sized image inside a spoiler tag (probably best).
2) A brief bullet list, huge and bolded, from the mapmaker himself. It would list the map features he wants people to know about. We should put a limit on the amount of items that can be listed, maybe 5, so that some people don't hog the page by putting 20 things.
Put two maps vs eachother. Which map is more balanced? WE HAVE A WINNER!! (looks are irrelevant as they can always be improved.) BOOM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
