|
On January 22 2013 23:20 ScorpSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:46 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 22 2013 22:43 EatThePath wrote:Call me back when there are controlled experiments to test things and I reconsider. You mean, like, games...? controlled experiments. Do you know the scientific basis and significance of a controlled experiment? You obviously do, so why not share your knowledge instead of bashing others? I doubt everyone in here are scientists. Seems a bit weird to explain it before they answer 'No, I don't.', it's not about that I require people to know it, it's that I require people to not talk about stuff they know nothing about. If you don't know what a controlled experiment is, please don't say that games fall under it because if you know what it is you know that test games do not fall under it.
Yes, games are an experiment, but they aren't controlled, controlled experiments are what makes science science because it separates correlation from causation. I'm sure a lot of people have heard of the phrase 'correlation does not make causation', and it doesn't:
Say you have an uncontrolled experiment. You observe something that happens freely in nature. Say you want to find a link between depression and sleeping, you interview people and come to the conclusion that many people suffering from depression in fact have had a lack of sleep in their youth. This is an uncontrolled experiment. And you may never as a scientist conclude from this that lack of sleeping causes depression. It may seem intuitive, but what about the other possible explanations: That perhaps studying hard for exams at school causes depression, and studying hard for exams also causes a lack of sleep hmm? Or another explanation that people who are genetically dis-positioned to get depression simply have sleeping problems? How about that stress causes depression, and stress also causes a lack of sleep? All these four explanations at this point are equally plausible. Because the experiment was not controlled. Empirical science is about establishing causation, which you cannot do without controlled experiments, which would work like this:
You have a variable you directly control. You take a group of people, split them in two, tell half of them 'You will do what you normally do' and tell half of them 'You guys are going to set the alarm clock 2 hours earlier than normal and sleep 2 hours less per night, and else you'll do what you normally do'. You have no controlled the variable of sleep while keeping all other variables identical. Therefore, if it turns out now that the people who sleep less end up being depressed later in their life. You have demonstrated a causative relationship here.
And here's the problem with controlled experiments related to human health by the way, they are forbidden because they are unethical, because you're effectively tampering with people's health. But otherwise you can get a lot of controlled experiments with people if you're not tampering with their health.
So, in order to have a controlled experiment on maps. You need to have variations of the same map. One with less bases, one with more and then force a number of games on them. And herein lies the problem. Because you cannot control only this one variable, as soon as you add bases to a map you also change the map. If you have a version of Ohana with 4 extra bases and Terran starts to do amazing on that you can't say 'Great, we've proven that more bases is good for Terran', because guess what, by adding those bases you create a lot of chokes and less open space of course as well, so you can just as well say it's because of the chokes and open spaces. Therefore controlled experiments on maps are pretty much impossible and mapmaking is not, and cannot be a science. Not everything can be a science, people who think science has the answer to everything don't know science. Science only has an answer to a specific set of problems. As said before, science is painfully low on human health because you can't have controlled experiments on human health. That's why things like 'Is violence on TV or games really causing violent behaviour?' will forever remain unanswered. Because you can't have controlled experiments and tell people 'Watch a lot of violence on TV and play more violent games.' and then watch them and see if more of them grow up to shoot their school apart. It's unethical.
|
Please tune down colors/saturation
|
United Kingdom12047 Posts
On January 22 2013 23:15 opisska wrote:
I have just seen this map for the first time in GSL and I just love the concept of economically strange bases.
It's realy a new level of interesting, when the timings differ. The amount of different games that lie under the surface of SC2 is almost endless - the only thing you need to do is stop being so stubborn with "it has to be like that". I just can't comprehend why no tournament has ever gone this way any sooner.
I mentioned this in a thread about map stagnation a while ago, but it mainly comes down to tournaments worrying the players won't want to bother trying to adapt in which case the players won't bother signing up for their tournaments anymore.
The other issue is with the non Korean tournaments they usually have a map pool for their entire season which lasts the entire year. This leads to even bigger problems as they're stuck with the same maps all year.
Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc.
|
I am curious how this map will turn out. As the players seems to agree that this is the map they are going to ignore training on. Has potential, but it has to survive the players.
|
On January 23 2013 00:42 Qikz wrote:
Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc. Proleague is different though, since every player with a KeSPA licence is pretty much forced to sign up and practice those maps. They could use shrinkage there and players would swallow it, KeSPA runs a tight (dictator)ship yo.
|
On January 23 2013 00:42 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 23:15 opisska wrote:
I have just seen this map for the first time in GSL and I just love the concept of economically strange bases.
It's realy a new level of interesting, when the timings differ. The amount of different games that lie under the surface of SC2 is almost endless - the only thing you need to do is stop being so stubborn with "it has to be like that". I just can't comprehend why no tournament has ever gone this way any sooner. I mentioned this in a thread about map stagnation a while ago, but it mainly comes down to tournaments worrying the players won't want to bother trying to adapt in which case the players won't bother signing up for their tournaments anymore. The other issue is with the non Korean tournaments they usually have a map pool for their entire season which lasts the entire year. This leads to even bigger problems as they're stuck with the same maps all year. Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc.
I see your point, but what about the GSL? They have such an insane prize pool and prestige that anyone wiull sign up if they were running the whole thing on blood bath. I agree that what they do now seems inspired by the Proleague, but still find it hard to comprehened why they did not experiment with maps earlier - considering how amazingly progressive and forward GOMTV is about other things.
|
|
|
On January 23 2013 02:23 Barrin wrote:
Mapmaking is more like architecture or city planning than science. Yes the scientific method helps us develop better maps but that's truly not all there is to it. This is honestly a very good analogy. Like with architecture, if you go terrible wrong the building collapses. There are certain limits but apart from that, what makes a beautiful and/or functional building is quite subjective.
I really just can't see T or P catching up to a Z without another gas at that backdoor nat. Surely that would favour Z in ZvT? In TvZ I'm rarely at 3 gasses before I take my third, in ZvT I'm at 4 gasses quite often before I do so.
|
I am more conserned about the high ground third. It is like a douple negative. It is highground much like Jungle basin which was a disaster plus it seems that you would not have a too hard time sieging that position from a fortified position from behind.
Siege tanks could actually end up being scary again.
|
On January 21 2013 15:26 lorestarcraft wrote:
I predict this will last 1 season in GSL
Seeing how it's the very last season of WoL... Solid prediction.
|
On January 23 2013 02:11 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 00:42 Qikz wrote:On January 22 2013 23:15 opisska wrote:
I have just seen this map for the first time in GSL and I just love the concept of economically strange bases.
It's realy a new level of interesting, when the timings differ. The amount of different games that lie under the surface of SC2 is almost endless - the only thing you need to do is stop being so stubborn with "it has to be like that". I just can't comprehend why no tournament has ever gone this way any sooner. I mentioned this in a thread about map stagnation a while ago, but it mainly comes down to tournaments worrying the players won't want to bother trying to adapt in which case the players won't bother signing up for their tournaments anymore. The other issue is with the non Korean tournaments they usually have a map pool for their entire season which lasts the entire year. This leads to even bigger problems as they're stuck with the same maps all year. Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc. I see your point, but what about the GSL? They have such an insane prize pool and prestige that anyone wiull sign up if they were running the whole thing on blood bath. I agree that what they do now seems inspired by the Proleague, but still find it hard to comprehened why they did not experiment with maps earlier - considering how amazingly progressive and forward GOMTV is about other things.
Actually one of their first maps was such a venture. Tal'Darim Altar had a 3rd base with 750-value mineral patches. Blizzard instead made a standard base with rocks on it when they put it on ladder. This basically forced GOM's hand for subsequent seasons to use the ladder version that people were practicing on. And that set a precedent for standard is the standard, which is a damn shame. Two years lost.
|
As you allude to, sisko, you don't need controlled experiments to do science, despite the thesis you're were trying to support. Obviously mapmaking isn't an "exact science" in practice, but I think we should view it as a subset of game design, which is as analytical as you want it to be. "Anything goes" is a self-deception. "Anything untested may or may not go" is a fundamental starting point. I'm sure we don't disagree. I just want to point out that you don't have to have an abundance of certainty as a requirement to be scientific about a topic. I would prefer everybody look at mapmaking as a primarily scientific project, not an artistic one. Balance is not a matter of taste. Everything beyond balance is, though. (Incidentally, this is why games should be difficult to master, or else the space of interesting variations is rapidly mined out. Or worse, a game is mathematically solved and can be played by strict algorithm.)
|
On January 22 2013 03:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +do you know how long we have to go back to find 2 player maps with just 4.5 bases on ladder? Season ONE!! The 'half' base on tihs map has like 85% of a full base. It's basically Ohana in this respect but it has a lot more interesting an expansion layout.
So only 4.9 bases then?! Oh no!!
|
On January 23 2013 03:38 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 02:11 opisska wrote:On January 23 2013 00:42 Qikz wrote:On January 22 2013 23:15 opisska wrote:
I have just seen this map for the first time in GSL and I just love the concept of economically strange bases.
It's realy a new level of interesting, when the timings differ. The amount of different games that lie under the surface of SC2 is almost endless - the only thing you need to do is stop being so stubborn with "it has to be like that". I just can't comprehend why no tournament has ever gone this way any sooner. I mentioned this in a thread about map stagnation a while ago, but it mainly comes down to tournaments worrying the players won't want to bother trying to adapt in which case the players won't bother signing up for their tournaments anymore. The other issue is with the non Korean tournaments they usually have a map pool for their entire season which lasts the entire year. This leads to even bigger problems as they're stuck with the same maps all year. Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc. I see your point, but what about the GSL? They have such an insane prize pool and prestige that anyone wiull sign up if they were running the whole thing on blood bath. I agree that what they do now seems inspired by the Proleague, but still find it hard to comprehened why they did not experiment with maps earlier - considering how amazingly progressive and forward GOMTV is about other things. Actually one of there first maps was such a venture. Tal'Darim Altar had a 3rd base with 750-value mineral patches. Blizzard instead made a standard base with rocks on it when they put it on ladder. This basically forced GOM's hand for subsequent seasons to use the ladder version that people were practicing on. And that set a precedent for standard is the standard, which is a damn shame. Two years lost.
Well Blizzard still enforces this rule for their ladder maps. Generally speaking you probably shouldn't try to alter expansion values, if you want your map on ladder.
Still regarding Kespa vs Gom in who is the most daring in map selection. Kespa has a huge advantage really, their format. They could bring in trash like Metropolis or Calm before the storm in their pool and it wouldn't pose much of a problem. It would be pure ZvZ or PvP respectively but in terms of deciding a winning team not really. Their format doesn't rely on map balance it relies on each teams decisionmaking when choosing players for certain maps.
Gom however with a more traditional format can't really get away with keeping maps so imbalanced in for more than a season of a time. And yea i fear this map may be one of those that leave after just one season. Even if they were to do a huge mappool overhaul at HOTS release.
|
On January 23 2013 03:57 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 03:38 EatThePath wrote:On January 23 2013 02:11 opisska wrote:On January 23 2013 00:42 Qikz wrote:On January 22 2013 23:15 opisska wrote:
I have just seen this map for the first time in GSL and I just love the concept of economically strange bases.
It's realy a new level of interesting, when the timings differ. The amount of different games that lie under the surface of SC2 is almost endless - the only thing you need to do is stop being so stubborn with "it has to be like that". I just can't comprehend why no tournament has ever gone this way any sooner. I mentioned this in a thread about map stagnation a while ago, but it mainly comes down to tournaments worrying the players won't want to bother trying to adapt in which case the players won't bother signing up for their tournaments anymore. The other issue is with the non Korean tournaments they usually have a map pool for their entire season which lasts the entire year. This leads to even bigger problems as they're stuck with the same maps all year. Proleague in my opinion was the first thing that came along and proved to people that you can experiement with maps in tournaments and cycle them out if they don't work etc. etc. I see your point, but what about the GSL? They have such an insane prize pool and prestige that anyone wiull sign up if they were running the whole thing on blood bath. I agree that what they do now seems inspired by the Proleague, but still find it hard to comprehened why they did not experiment with maps earlier - considering how amazingly progressive and forward GOMTV is about other things. Actually one of there first maps was such a venture. Tal'Darim Altar had a 3rd base with 750-value mineral patches. Blizzard instead made a standard base with rocks on it when they put it on ladder. This basically forced GOM's hand for subsequent seasons to use the ladder version that people were practicing on. And that set a precedent for standard is the standard, which is a damn shame. Two years lost. Well Blizzard still enforces this rule for their ladder maps. Generally speaking you probably shouldn't try to alter expansion values, if you want your map on ladder. Still regarding Kespa vs Gom in who is the most daring in map selection. Kespa has a huge advantage really, their format. They could bring in trash like Metropolis or Calm before the storm in their pool and it wouldn't pose much of a problem. It would be pure ZvZ or PvP respectively but in terms of deciding a winning team not really. Their format doesn't rely on map balance it relies on each teams decisionmaking when choosing players for certain maps. Gom however with a more traditional format can't really get away with keeping maps so imbalanced in for more than a season of a time. And yea i fear this map may be one of those that leave after just one season. Even if they were to do a huge mappool overhaul at HOTS release.
Oh absolutely to all that. I was implicating Blizzard, not GOM. GOM has done their best given the format and the temperature of the community on map rotation. Luckily Kespa takes maps seriously and fulfills their responsibility to push the boundaries. Apparently, no one else can.
Well, except now GOM is sticking a toe in the pond, which is very welcome, no matter whether the map flops or flies. We should all keep that in mind.
|
On January 23 2013 03:49 EatThePath wrote:
As you allude to, sisko, you don't need controlled experiments to do science. You do, that's the very idea of science. Objectivity, reproductible results. As soon as there can be debate and subjective human interpretation then science loses its very significance. The entire point of science is to weed out the fallacies of subjective human interpretation and thereby its errors. As soon as you say science doesn't need that then basically everything becomes a science.
People say that intelligent design is not a form of science, and they are right, why do they say that? Because intelligent design is not falsifiable, it's not a theory that is overreaching and predicts things that have not yet been observed, it has not been verified by controlled experiments, ergo, it is not science. In this very vein, whatever conjecturing we may have about mapmaking is not falsifiable, it is not a theory that is overreaching and it does not predict things that have not yet been observed. If you say that the conventional wisdom of mapmaking is a science, then you say that intelligent design is science as well.
Note that intelligent design is a very plausible idea, it may be true, it may not be true, but no scientific experiment has confirmed either way and therefore it is not science to even concern oneself with it.
Obviously mapmaking isn't an "exact science" in practice, but I think we should view it as a subset of game design, which is as analytical as you want it to be. Game design is also not a science. Did you ever see someone have a Ph.D. in game design publishing new breaking theories in peer reviewed journals of game design? Game design is conventional wisdom.
"Anything goes" is a self-deception. "Anything untested may or may not go" is a fundamental starting point. Anything goes as an academic term basically means that there are no hard codified rules about steps of deduction. In science there are clearly defined rules what constitutes correct scientific methodology a scientist keeps to. So not anything goes. In philosophy there is no such thing, where anything goes.
I'm sure we don't disagree. I just want to point out that you don't have to have an abundance of certainty as a requirement to be scientific about a topic. Certainly one does, that is the whole idea of science, certainty, objectivity, correctness in one's ascertaintion of truth.
I would prefer everybody look at mapmaking as a primarily scientific project, not an artistic one. But mapmaking is art. Do you really feel that 'scientists' fits the description of a mapper more than 'artist'?
Balance is not a matter of taste. Everything beyond balance is, though. (Incidentally, this is why games should be difficult to master, or else the space of interesting variations is rapidly mined out. Or worse, a game is mathematically solved and can be played by strict algorithm.) Winrates are objective, how much winrates equate to 'balance' is a very difficult epistemological problem. To say that winrate = balance is a grave scientific error however.
|
Science only needs falsifiability. Nothing we can do proves anything, it's all correlations. Isolating variables just lets you combine Occam's razor and statistics to amplify the dependability of your theories. Is there a relevant thread to which we can move this discussion? I'm game to continue this if you want to, but I don't want to sidetrack this map thread too much. ^^
About maps, I'll answer this way. A mapmaker is not a dancer. Is not a musician. Is somewhat of a painter and a sculptor. Is not a playwright. Is a carpenter. Is an engineer. Is a governor. Is a pilot. Is a city planner and architect, sure.
The job of a mapmaker, in my mind, is foremost to make an interesting and fair game component, not a pretty gewgaw. You have to admit that the one precedes the other in relevance in competitive gaming.
About game design, popular game design is about as scientific as marketing, and amounts to as much. There is an entirely different academic class of game design that has nothing to do with fun, per se, and is comparable to economics or computer science. I admit that competitive gaming requires fun, but it requires analysis more than a catchy idea. (Assuming we have a popular game to begin with.)
|
I do not like this map, as the main and natural set-up seemingly ruins protoss. Not only does the double wide ramp break PvP, but the single gas in the natural limits protoss tech, while the 2 gold patches will help Terran. I do not see PvP or PvT working well on this map. If the main and natural were a bit more standard, this would be a great map.
Also, not really a fan of the aesthetics. I find this map very ugly, which is not something you'd expect from a GSL map.
|
That makes me realize, is there any provision on this map for pylons at the backdoor rocks to warp inside? Maybe with the double main ramp they just figured it'd have to be a 4gate map anyway.
|
The job of a mapmaker, in my mind, is foremost to make an interesting and fair game component, not a pretty gewgaw.
Ha! I love it. If only everyone agreed with this sentence, we might be getting somewhere (as far as map pools go).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
