|
On November 04 2012 10:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +
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.
Statement: "Most people don't know what they're talking about."
Statement: "Map quality is completely subjective."
These two things can be independent and concurrent. I don't see what the hangup is. Nevertheless you seem to insist that:
a. There is no such thing as a bad map.
b. Even if there was, no one is qualified to point it out.
That's absurd.
|
Put two maps vs eachother. Which map is more balanced? WE HAVE A WINNER!! (looks are irrelevant as they can always be improved.) BOOM.
So you want to have map playoffs? lol.
I don't know if that's the fairest way to do it. What if the best map and the second best map face off in the first round? :-P
|
On November 04 2012 13:09 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +Put two maps vs eachother. Which map is more balanced? WE HAVE A WINNER!! (looks are irrelevant as they can always be improved.) BOOM. So you want to have map playoffs? lol. I don't know if that's the fairest way to do it. What if the best map and the second best map face off in the first round? :-P
no i was regarding the "you cant say what map is better."
|
On November 04 2012 12:22 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 10:04 SiskosGoatee wrote: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. Statement: "Most people don't know what they're talking about." Statement: "Map quality is completely subjective." These two things can be independent and concurrent. I don't see what the hangup is. Nevertheless you seem to insist that: Maybe, but the former is not what I'm saying despite your insistence.
a. There is no such thing as a bad map.
b. Even if there was, no one is qualified to point it out.
That's absurd.
Technically this is the case. Even though there are some maps which almost everyone will agree on that they are bad so it's just not wise for tournaments to use them. However, the crux of it isn't to point out bad maps, it's to point out 'good maps', the maps people want to see. People are far more divided on which maps they want to include than which maps they want to exclude. However, yes, just like there's no objective measure of a good/bad film or painting, there's no objective measure of a good/bad map. It isn't like mathematics where a calculation is correct or it isn't, I'm afraid.
|
Siskos - do you have an opinion ? Do you think anything should be done ?
Case 1 : Yes, express it.
Case 2 : Shut up and leave this thread, you're useless.
|
Agreed, please don't derail another thread.
Also maps, like film, painting and music have both subjective and objective elements. Stop trying to over simplify things to prove your point.
|
On November 04 2012 22:26 ArcticRaven wrote:
Siskos - do you have an opinion ? Do you think anything should be done ?
Case 1 : Yes, express it.
Case 2 : Shut up and leave this thread, you're useless. Alright, my opinion is that Ohana, Shakuras Plateau, Entombed Valley, and Tal'darim Altar are terrible maps and should be removed from the ladder immediately. Furthemore, rotational maps are fundamentally broken concept which anyone with a working brain should be able to immediately see and therefore should be either forced cross or not exist at all. Apart from that more than 2 player maps are also fundamentally broken because there exist bases which are actually mains but now have to serve as expansions meaning that they have to be balanced for both uses which just isn't possible, they will either be too easy to defend as an expansion or too hard to defend as a main. You can often just wall of a 'natural' on such bases to get access to two expansions, completely broken.
Apart from that, neutral depots should be removed from ramps linea recta, they aren't needed, they stop legitimate lowground walling sim-city and there is no statistic whatsoever that the walling strat versus Zerg is imbalanced and every progamer at this point acknowledges that if you tell a Zerg in advance you're going to do that it won't ever get up. It's much harder to deal with the 3 bunker in range of hatch blocks on Shakuras and Cloud Kingdom than the lowground walling strat which just shouldn't get up. It stems from an old, and unproven idea and massive whine from IdrA.
Apart from that the ladder pool should include Abyssal City and Muspelheim, also the old maps Metalopolis and Xel'Naga Caverns should be added back in as well as being made completely grid-perfect symmetrical. Antiga should get forced cross and gold bases should remain.
Also, add in this magnificent bastard from Crux.
Anyone who disagrees with this of course doesn't know what they are talking about.™
So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything?
On November 04 2012 22:41 OxyGenesis wrote:
Agreed, please don't derail another thread.
Also maps, like film, painting and music have both subjective and objective elements. Stop trying to over simplify things to prove your point. I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying things if you think there is anything objective about art. The only thing objective is balance numbers, and if balanced is even good or bad, is again subjective.
|
Here's my idea:
Every Ladder Season, Blizzard holds a map competition for a chance to get into the ladder.
Also, every ladder season, 1-2 unpopular maps are removed.
Since it's only addition of 1 map per season, people can choose to veto it, so it won't hurt that many people.
Do the same with 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 etc.
= people motivated to map
|
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything?
It's ok, it's ok. Now I know who I was talking with.
|
On November 04 2012 23:14 ArcticRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything? It's ok, it's ok. Now I know who I was talking with. I just don't get it, it's a bunch of people sprouting their subjective opinions against each other 'I think we should do this!', 'No, we should do this instead!' while neither party has any numerical or empirical arguments to back their course of action up. It doesn't contribute to anything.
In the end, everyone likes maps they enjoy playing on and enjoy watching games on and they like a map pool which has those maps, that's a surprise there.
|
On November 04 2012 23:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 23:14 ArcticRaven wrote:On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything? It's ok, it's ok. Now I know who I was talking with. I just don't get it, it's a bunch of people sprouting their subjective opinions against each other 'I think we should do this!', 'No, we should do this instead!' while neither party has any numerical or empirical arguments to back their course of action up. It doesn't contribute to anything. In the end, everyone likes maps they enjoy playing on and enjoy watching games on and they like a map pool which has those maps, that's a surprise there.
Do you realize you're the only one disagreeing right here right now in this thread ?
Guess I should stop fighting for lost causes.
|
On November 05 2012 00:01 ArcticRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 23:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On November 04 2012 23:14 ArcticRaven wrote:On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything? It's ok, it's ok. Now I know who I was talking with. I just don't get it, it's a bunch of people sprouting their subjective opinions against each other 'I think we should do this!', 'No, we should do this instead!' while neither party has any numerical or empirical arguments to back their course of action up. It doesn't contribute to anything. In the end, everyone likes maps they enjoy playing on and enjoy watching games on and they like a map pool which has those maps, that's a surprise there. Do you realize you're the only one disagreeing right here right now in this thread ? Guess I should stop fighting for lost causes. You do realize that that's not true?
Sumadin: "Agree with all of those points [of SiskosGoatee]. "
Wnio "ive been arguing and will continue to say blizzard maps are NOT just shit."
NewSunShine (replying to above) "Woah.
I'm not the only one."
Blarkh: "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."
NewSunShine:
"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. "
As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map
|
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Furthemore, rotational maps are fundamentally broken concept which anyone with a working brain should be able to immediately see and therefore should be either forced cross or not exist at all. Apart from that more than 2 player maps are also fundamentally broken because there exist bases which are actually mains but now have to serve as expansions meaning that they have to be balanced for both uses which just isn't possible, they will either be too easy to defend as an expansion or too hard to defend as a main. You can often just wall of a 'natural' on such bases to get access to two expansions, completely broken.
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying things if you think there is anything objective about art. The only thing objective is balance numbers, and if balanced is even good or bad, is again subjective.
The argument I've quoted at the top has a few major problems. First is the second quote, which immediately relegates your argument to opinion. Second problem: you don't know any of that to be true. Maps with 3+ spawns have been around for literally this game's entire life as an e-sport, the fact that having another natural+main that are paired together hasn't harmed anything, mostly because in the late-game I can harass the hell out of a base setup like that, and that's what happens.
Also, I have a working brain, and I see good reason to make rotational maps(I have 2 WIP's right now, but you probably wouldn't like either one I take it). Balance isn't everything. Making a map like this is all nice and good, but you take away so much from the gameplay that it becomes a waste of time. Part of the appeal of 4p rotational maps is to make a map with several spawn setups that either player can end up in, so part of the challenge becomes making a map this way that is reasonably balanced, but still has a variety to it(read: focus on gameplay too!).
Believe me, I've taken far more time to think about this subject than you apparently have. I've come to realize that having a balanced map is good for the players of an e-sport, but having a map that's fun to play on is good for the players as well as the spectators, you can't ignore one just because empirical data is what makes an argument. My goal has always been to reach the best possible compromise of the two. Now, if you have anything substantial to offer to the discussion, aside from another total disagreement for the sake of discord, bring it. If not, kindly shut up.
|
On November 05 2012 00:30 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Furthemore, rotational maps are fundamentally broken concept which anyone with a working brain should be able to immediately see and therefore should be either forced cross or not exist at all. Apart from that more than 2 player maps are also fundamentally broken because there exist bases which are actually mains but now have to serve as expansions meaning that they have to be balanced for both uses which just isn't possible, they will either be too easy to defend as an expansion or too hard to defend as a main. You can often just wall of a 'natural' on such bases to get access to two expansions, completely broken. Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying things if you think there is anything objective about art. The only thing objective is balance numbers, and if balanced is even good or bad, is again subjective. The argument I've quoted at the top has a few major problems. First is the second quote, which immediately relegates your argument to opinion. Of course, I was asked to give my subjective opinion, so I did. The reason I don'toften give them in discussions like this is because I consider it useless, it's just people giving their subjective opinions without a real discussion.
Second problem: you don't know any of that to be true. Maps with 3+ spawns have been around for literally this game's entire life as an e-sport, the fact that having another natural+main that are paired together hasn't harmed anything, mostly because in the late-game I can harass the hell out of a base setup like that, and that's what happens. There is no true or false here, like you identified correctly, this is my subjective opinion, I personally don't like to play on that or watch that. I believe that every base except a natural and a main should have at least two attack paths into it. I'm sure there are many people who don't consider that a problem but I don't like that kind of play on a map personally. 2 bases having only one attack path into them because they are actually a main and a natural is a definite no-no for me, I don't like it, personally of course.
Also, I have a working brain, and I see good reason to make rotational maps(I have 2 WIP's right now, but you probably wouldn't like either one I take it). Balance isn't everything. Making a map like this is all nice and good, but you take away so much from the gameplay that it becomes a waste of time. Part of the appeal of 4p rotational maps is to make a map with several spawn setups that either player can end up in, so part of the challenge becomes making a map this way that is reasonably balanced, but still has a variety to it(read: focus on gameplay too!).
Apart from that, more than 4 player maps have the issue that I already outlined with making expansions which do not have enough vectors of attack. Again, these are all personal issues I personally and subjectively have with those maps, it's an opinion, not a fact.
Believe me, I've taken far more time to think about this subject than you apparently have. I've come to realize that having a balanced map is good for the players of an e-sport, but having a map that's fun to play on is good for the players as well as the spectators, you can't ignore one just because empirical data is what makes an argument. My goal has always been to reach the best possible compromise of the two. Now, if you have anything substantial to offer to the discussion, aside from another total disagreement for the sake of discord, bring it. If not, kindly shut up. You misunderstand, it's not about balance, I just subjectively don't think that more than 2 player maps, and especially rotational maps, are fun. I think the idea of both scouting at the same time, but his worker getting into my base and I not in his base is extremely frustrating. Consequently, winning a game because the opposite happened and I got to see his gas but he didn't get to see my gas feels like a hollow victory where you were just lucky.
I just don't like it personally, and what people like or do not like is again subjective.
|
On November 05 2012 01:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Of course, I was asked to give my subjective opinion, so I did. The reason I don'toften give them in discussions like this is because I consider it useless, it's just people giving their subjective opinions without a real discussion.
Then instead of forging discord among a useless opinion-fest, try instead to push a more meaningful discussion. Constantly disagreeing with everyone doesn't help anything, it just contributes to the problem.
|
On November 05 2012 01:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Of course, I was asked to give my subjective opinion, so I did. The reason I don'toften give them in discussions like this is because I consider it useless, it's just people giving their subjective opinions without a real discussion.
Then instead of forging discord among a useless opinion-fest, try instead to push a more meaningful discussion. Constantly disagreeing with everyone doesn't help anything, it just contributes to the problem. I'm not disagreeing with everyone's opinion about what are good and bad maps. I'm disagreeing with the fundamental notion that some people have that this is an objective rather than subjective thing.
|
On November 05 2012 00:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:
As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map
But you're the only one that thinks we shouldn't try to add new maps. You're the only one who thinks nothing should be done.
|
A lot of the current issues in the metagame are down to the (zerg lead) community's obsession with gigantic maps, mainly to weaken terran early game. What we need is a shift back to medium sized maps with fewer attack paths. Oddly, the maps that cater to this playstyle best... are all Blizzard maps.
Maybe Blizzard understand their game better than TeamLiquid thinks?
|
On November 05 2012 02:02 ArcticRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:
As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map But you're the only one that thinks we shouldn't try to add new maps. You're the only one who thinks nothing should be done. Where am I saying that? I'd love to add new maps. I'm just saying that no matter what makes you add, people are going to remain dissatisfied. I'd love to add the maps I personally like, like everyone, and the maps I like are going to be disliked by other people, just as with everyone.
|
On November 05 2012 02:08 Evangelist wrote:
A lot of the current issues in the metagame are down to the (zerg lead) community's obsession with gigantic maps, mainly to weaken terran early game. What we need is a shift back to medium sized maps with fewer attack paths. Oddly, the maps that cater to this playstyle best... are all Blizzard maps.
Maybe Blizzard understand their game better than TeamLiquid thinks?
Newer community maps aren't gigantic anymore. (well, DF maps at least not, and I don't think ESV or TPW go overboard with rush distances either)
The big problem is that due to the absence of rotation, only older and bigger maps are played - especially, CruX had a period during which they got Daybreak, Atlantis Spaceship, Metropolis and Whirlwind played - and newer, smaller maps aren't used.
I think more community participation would solve those kinds of metagame problems very very easily - but, unfortunately, the pool stays stale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
