|
On January 23 2013 04:17 EatThePath wrote:
Science only needs falsifiability. Even if this were true, mapping doesn't have it. Unless you can give me an experiment that disproves the hypothesis that Antiga Shipyard is a terribad map.
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. No, this is where science differs from social science. Its ability to actually establish a causative relationship. If I drip hydrochloric acid into the eyes of 200 mice and do nothing with the 200 other mice and all the mice I dripped that into turn blind. That's not just a correlation, that's a causation. Provided the mice are randomly selected I've proven that hydrochloric acid causes mice to become blind. This is a controlled experiment.
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. ^^ Please, littlepuss.
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. But there is more to art than aesthetics. Take a graphics designer, there are various things like readability involved when you design a poster, it needs to capture one's eye. It doesn't just need to be pretty. Yet, it is still all wet fingerwork and conventinal wisdom, not science.
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.) Yes, but marketing is completely unscientific and people who think market research involves scientific methodology are wrong. It's mostly conventional wisdom. Something science basically tries to avoid because it can be wrong. In fact, many scientific discoveries defy conventional wisdom. For instance, it defies conventinal wisdom that people become attracted to people who abuse them physically. The science behind it is that the physical abuse triggers the release of addictive endorphines to cope with the physical pain which results into an attraction towards the cause of the physical pain.
|
It's completely unfair to say that market research is just conventional wisdom. How can you claim to know the practice of marketers? AB testing is a definition of an experiment with as many variables as possible held constant...
Much of what I do in my mapping process is related to trying multiple ideas and seeing which is best received. While we only have real exposure within this forum, it's still something worth going off of.
Here's what I can say about a map that is well received here: People who care about maps enough to spend time here, and people who have spent time trying to make maps prefer this concept to others that have been presented. That is non-trivial.
|
On January 23 2013 10:21 RFDaemoniac wrote:
It's completely unfair to say that market research is just conventional wisdom. How can you claim to know the practice of marketers? AB testing is a definition of an experiment with as many variables as possible held constant... It's quite simple. Like I said before, it can't be science because it doesn't have controlled experiments, it can't have controlled experiments because it's unethical or impossible to have those with human beings.
Much of what I do in my mapping process is related to trying multiple ideas and seeing which is best received. While we only have real exposure within this forum, it's still something worth going off of. What you just described is conventional wisdom and not scientific methodology.
Here's what I can say about a map that is well received here: People who care about maps enough to spend time here, and people who have spent time trying to make maps prefer this concept to others that have been presented. That is non-trivial. This is a form of conventional wisdom as well.
I'm not saying that conventional wisdom can't be right. The thing about science is basically that a theoretially ideal piece of science done with the theoretically ideal scientific method cannot ever be wrong. Which is sort of what you want. Of course, the purest form of the scientific method is only found in exact science like mathematics and theoretical physics. And there hasn't been a mathematical result turned out to be false later on in the last 2000 years, so far it seems to work.
|
Are you trying to convince me? Or yourself? We differ on epistemology, not the scientific method and how to use it, although it seems like you put it in an artificial box.
Even if this were true, mapping doesn't have it. Unless you can give me an experiment that disproves the hypothesis that Antiga Shipyard is a terribad map.
Someone would have to be a fool to make a scientific claim using that language. I don't just mean terribad, I take your point. But clearly "bad" is a wishywashy notion in the first place. If you could pin that down, then the claim "Antiga Shipyard is bad" (which would be a special case of a larger theory of what is good and bad in a map) is readily decidable. Of course it may be unfeasible to attain conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Therefore it'd be much more useful and approachable to make a claim about things within the bounds of our current understanding. For example, "there is no way to have a stable 4base vs 4base game on Antiga Shipyard in any matchup." You might protest that this could never be demonstrated to satisfaction. I'd probably agree. But that's the point of science: it doesn't provide answers, just best guesses so far, with the door always open for a redrawing of the case.
We also differ on the purview of science when it comes to complex phenomena. To me, it's a problem of computation and theoretical insight whether a complex system can be predicted, not just whether it ever could be. Realistically, there's no way to pin down SC2 balance on a given map any more than the weather. And it's just a game after all. So I'm perfectly willing to concede that it will ever only proceed as a thoughtful endeavor which certainly has its art. I only want to show that the spirit of the thing should be scientific when it comes to approaching questions of balance, or claims of sufficiently manageable scope. Most people bag on "theorycrafting" because they are afraid of combining discipline and imagination, when in fact it's a perfectly good way to make progress.
|
On January 23 2013 10:28 EatThePath wrote:Are you trying to convince me? Or yourself? We differ on epistemology, not the scientific method and how to use it, although it seems like you put it in an artificial box. Show nested quote +Even if this were true, mapping doesn't have it. Unless you can give me an experiment that disproves the hypothesis that Antiga Shipyard is a terribad map. Someone would have to be a fool to make a scientific claim using that language. I don't just mean terribad, I take your point. But clearly "bad" is a wishywashy notion in the first place. If you could pin that down, then the claim "Antiga Shipyard is bad" (which would be a special case of a larger theory of what is good and bad in a map) is readily decidable. Of course it may be unfeasible to attain conclusive evidence one way or the other. Okay, so I define bad as any map which has neutral depots at ramps. Well, seems like ladder antiga isn't terribad but GSL antiga is.
Oh wait, that's the issue, the fact that any definition of 'bad' again comes down to personal preference. That's kind of my point.
Therefore it'd be much more useful and approachable to make a claim about things within the bounds of our current understanding. For example, "there is no way to have a stable 4base vs 4base game on Antiga Shipyard in any matchup." You might protest that this could never be demonstrated to satisfaction. I'd probably agree. But that's the point of science: it doesn't provide answers, just best guesses so far, with the door always open for a redrawing of the case.[/quote[Even if you could frmulate a definition of 'stable 4base game' and come with some wild algorithm that takes in a map file and produces the probability of this happening which would be worth a Fields medal of itself for the sheer monumental achievement. Let's say it's theoretically possible.
It's still not actually used currently in the making of maps, so making maps is currently not a science No scientific methodology, even if it's theoretically possible, is currently employed, it's wet fingerwork.
We also differ on the purview of science when it comes to complex phenomena. To me, it's a problem of computation and theoretical insight whether a complex system can be predicted, not just whether it ever could be. Realistically, there's no way to pin down SC2 balance on a given map any more than the weather. And it's just a game after all. So I'm perfectly willing to concede that it will ever only proceed as a thoughtful endeavor which certainly has its art. I only want to show that the spirit of the thing should be scientific when it comes to approaching questions of balance, or claims of sufficiently manageable scope. Most people bag on "theorycrafting" because they are afraid of combining discipline and imagination, when in fact it's a perfectly good way to make progress.[/QUOTE]There are certain theoretical limits to computation.You actually cannot compute everything. It might very well be that even though the problem has a solution, it is not computable or analytically findable even.
Basically, for any problem, you're going to go through this tree:
- Does the problem have a solution, this is not a given.
- is a false solution provably incorrect. Some problems that have a solution, if you get the wrong one, you can't prove it's wrong.
- Is the true solution provably correct. As in, if you have the solution, is it provable that it is correct. Some problems have a solution but it is theoretically impossible to prove that it actually is the solution.
- Is the solution computable, say it exists, that does not mean there is a way to arbitrarily approach its numerical value with some algorithm. THere are problems which have a solution, if you have the solution you can prove that it is correct, but there is no algorithm that can actually find them for you.
- Is the problem analytically solveable. The holy grail and what you ideally want, that you can just find the exact value of the solution ezpz.
Science is less ideal than some people think, this goes even so far to mathematics and most certainly exists in emprical sciences, some problems just don't have a solution, some that do, their solution is impossible to find via deduction, you have to hit on it randomly via trial and error and in some of those cases if you hit on it randmly you can actually prove that you are right, in some you can't.
|
I think we can use a mix of agressive and macro maps. It mixes things up, as long as there aren't huge flaws.
|
On January 23 2013 10:49 Alryk wrote:
I think we can use a mix of agressive and macro maps. It mixes things up, as long as there aren't huge flaws. I agree, honestly, I think Whirlwind is fine, I also think this map is fine. But every tournament is basically filled with very similar maps. It wasn't always like this in the GSL though. Dual Site has a pretty interesting natural and last a long while. As did Crevasse.
|
If you defined bad like that, it'd be meaningless because it has a one to one correspondence with neutral depots. You might as well just say neutral depots.
I know there are undecidables; that's why I brought up that specific language. If you also know that... what are we talking about? You contend that there are too many undecidable things in SC2, so no use trying to find certainties? You can show whether something is or not, and that's a burden of proof that needs to be fulfilled. I disagree, and that's why I took it to computation. I guess we both doubt any miracle analytical solutions in SC2, and that was why I brought up "hard to master" earlier. In lieu of some kind of systematic methodology for computation, we have games, which you could view metaphorically as Monte Carlo computation. Is it so bad to at least lend a little credence to data and some soft relational statements, and perhaps one or two levels of implication thereupon?
The reason it's a question of science vs art at all and not just math: is this solvable or not? is because humans are playing the game. But there's a rather tight envelope for our theoryspace provided by the game tree. However it has a fuzzy boundary, like "what is the maximum EAPM of a human?" or "what is the most perfect minimap awareness a human can have?" And then there's more fuzziness because clearly the game tree is untenable, so we make drastic sweeping reductions in state description that lose tons of information. "An army in the middle" instead of a list of units and their r, dr/dt, and d^2r/dt^2. Nevertheless, I think there's enough precision and validity to the sense we can make of the game not to abandon a methodical approach. It's certainly not postmodern literary criticism, which is what it seems like you make it out to be, if you'll forgive me.
[edit for clarity]
|
No, mapmaking is not science. Move on.
|
I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like.
On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it  How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map.
Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea?
|
On January 23 2013 18:35 iamcaustic wrote:I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like. Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map. Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea? It's personal, it is a problem to me. I don't like it, I often get mined out on Ohana. It's one of my least liked maps for a number of reasons, one being the amount of bases. Together with the extremely linear expansion progression.
THis is what I liked more about Korhal Compound though I would not mind 2 centre half bases added to the map on the lowground. But his fifth could also be your fourth or even third. Same with Dual Sight, it wasn't clear which gold was whose, it adds something interesting when you can expand both ways.
To put it like this, any map good for mech is a bad map in my opinion because it encourages turtly play and discourages multi pronged aggression and doesn't have a lot of bases, which is of course something that enables mech.
|
On January 23 2013 21:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 18:35 iamcaustic wrote:I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like. On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map. Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea? It's personal, it is a problem to me. I don't like it, I often get mined out on Ohana. It's one of my least liked maps for a number of reasons, one being the amount of bases. Together with the extremely linear expansion progression. THis is what I liked more about Korhal Compound though I would not mind 2 centre half bases added to the map on the lowground. But his fifth could also be your fourth or even third. Same with Dual Sight, it wasn't clear which gold was whose, it adds something interesting when you can expand both ways. To put it like this, any map good for mech is a bad map in my opinion because it encourages turtly play and discourages multi pronged aggression and doesn't have a lot of bases, which is of course something that enables mech.
The map is pretty basic and straightforward for sure, but most games don't even get to mining out 5 bases, if you're even lucky to reach 5 bases in the first place. Saying you often get mined out on Ohana is either an extreme exaggeration or your opponents never attack you for some reason. Maybe you mine out 3 bases and have a hard time taking a 4th/5th, but that's very different from mining out the map. 5 bases provide enough resources to get you hour-long games, it's just a matter of collecting all the resources.
|
On January 23 2013 22:10 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 21:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 23 2013 18:35 iamcaustic wrote:I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like. On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map. Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea? It's personal, it is a problem to me. I don't like it, I often get mined out on Ohana. It's one of my least liked maps for a number of reasons, one being the amount of bases. Together with the extremely linear expansion progression. THis is what I liked more about Korhal Compound though I would not mind 2 centre half bases added to the map on the lowground. But his fifth could also be your fourth or even third. Same with Dual Sight, it wasn't clear which gold was whose, it adds something interesting when you can expand both ways. To put it like this, any map good for mech is a bad map in my opinion because it encourages turtly play and discourages multi pronged aggression and doesn't have a lot of bases, which is of course something that enables mech. The map is pretty basic and straightforward for sure, but most games don't even get to mining out 5 bases, if you're even lucky to reach 5 bases in the first place. Saying you often get mined out on Ohana is either an extreme exaggeration or your opponents never attack you for some reason. Maybe you mine out 3 bases and have a hard time taking a 4th/5th, but that's very different from mining out the map. 5 bases provide enough resources to get you hour-long games, it's just a matter of collecting all the resources. I beg to differ, I get mined out because I attack a lot and force a lot of engagements and thereby keep losing units. IT's nt an exaggeration, I'm very comfortable playing a 90 SCV or 110 probe/drone game and Ohana leaves me mined out.
As far as progamers go, they adapt to Ohana, they tend t play styles that get mined out less quickly because you expand slower with it, mech and other related deathballish styles like BL/Infestor are quite popular there simply because the map doesn't give you the amount of bases for proper muta/ling/bane which requires you to expand more quickly and rely on the mobility of your army to defend. 5 Base Zerg is pretty much required for good muta/ling/bane ZvT.
Personally, I think all those deathballish and passive playstyles are extremely boring to watch which is sort of what a low expo game forces.
|
On January 23 2013 22:21 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 22:10 iamcaustic wrote:On January 23 2013 21:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 23 2013 18:35 iamcaustic wrote:I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like. On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map. Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea? It's personal, it is a problem to me. I don't like it, I often get mined out on Ohana. It's one of my least liked maps for a number of reasons, one being the amount of bases. Together with the extremely linear expansion progression. THis is what I liked more about Korhal Compound though I would not mind 2 centre half bases added to the map on the lowground. But his fifth could also be your fourth or even third. Same with Dual Sight, it wasn't clear which gold was whose, it adds something interesting when you can expand both ways. To put it like this, any map good for mech is a bad map in my opinion because it encourages turtly play and discourages multi pronged aggression and doesn't have a lot of bases, which is of course something that enables mech. The map is pretty basic and straightforward for sure, but most games don't even get to mining out 5 bases, if you're even lucky to reach 5 bases in the first place. Saying you often get mined out on Ohana is either an extreme exaggeration or your opponents never attack you for some reason. Maybe you mine out 3 bases and have a hard time taking a 4th/5th, but that's very different from mining out the map. 5 bases provide enough resources to get you hour-long games, it's just a matter of collecting all the resources. I beg to differ, I get mined out because I attack a lot and force a lot of engagements and thereby keep losing units. IT's nt an exaggeration, I'm very comfortable playing a 90 SCV or 110 probe/drone game and Ohana leaves me mined out. As far as progamers go, they adapt to Ohana, they tend t play styles that get mined out less quickly because you expand slower with it, mech and other related deathballish styles like BL/Infestor are quite popular there simply because the map doesn't give you the amount of bases for proper muta/ling/bane which requires you to expand more quickly and rely on the mobility of your army to defend. 5 Base Zerg is pretty much required for good muta/ling/bane ZvT. Personally, I think all those deathballish and passive playstyles are extremely boring to watch which is sort of what a low expo game forces.
If you want to make maps for the level of the game that you play then that's fine, but we're talking about competitive maps at the pro level. Ohana evidently plays out fine and is well liked at the pro level. Your whole view of mapping seems to be from the very narrow point of view of your own experience playing the game. Instead, why don't you try taking a step back and look at the discipline of map design in a broader sense?
If you want to conclude that map making isn't a science because we as map makers don't look at it scientifically then I guess you'd be right. But the fact that in theory, given the right expertise/time/money, you could write a computer program that simulates hundreds of thousands of games on a map and outputs meaningful data that could be used to advance map design to me indicates that 'science' isn't that far off. Evidently the way we see map design is much closer to architects than scientists, but I don't think that discounts the ability for someone to look at it scientifically if they wanted to.
|
On January 24 2013 00:35 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 22:21 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 23 2013 22:10 iamcaustic wrote:On January 23 2013 21:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 23 2013 18:35 iamcaustic wrote:I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like. On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map. Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea? It's personal, it is a problem to me. I don't like it, I often get mined out on Ohana. It's one of my least liked maps for a number of reasons, one being the amount of bases. Together with the extremely linear expansion progression. THis is what I liked more about Korhal Compound though I would not mind 2 centre half bases added to the map on the lowground. But his fifth could also be your fourth or even third. Same with Dual Sight, it wasn't clear which gold was whose, it adds something interesting when you can expand both ways. To put it like this, any map good for mech is a bad map in my opinion because it encourages turtly play and discourages multi pronged aggression and doesn't have a lot of bases, which is of course something that enables mech. The map is pretty basic and straightforward for sure, but most games don't even get to mining out 5 bases, if you're even lucky to reach 5 bases in the first place. Saying you often get mined out on Ohana is either an extreme exaggeration or your opponents never attack you for some reason. Maybe you mine out 3 bases and have a hard time taking a 4th/5th, but that's very different from mining out the map. 5 bases provide enough resources to get you hour-long games, it's just a matter of collecting all the resources. I beg to differ, I get mined out because I attack a lot and force a lot of engagements and thereby keep losing units. IT's nt an exaggeration, I'm very comfortable playing a 90 SCV or 110 probe/drone game and Ohana leaves me mined out. As far as progamers go, they adapt to Ohana, they tend t play styles that get mined out less quickly because you expand slower with it, mech and other related deathballish styles like BL/Infestor are quite popular there simply because the map doesn't give you the amount of bases for proper muta/ling/bane which requires you to expand more quickly and rely on the mobility of your army to defend. 5 Base Zerg is pretty much required for good muta/ling/bane ZvT. Personally, I think all those deathballish and passive playstyles are extremely boring to watch which is sort of what a low expo game forces. If you want to make maps for the level of the game that you play then that's fine, but we're talking about competitive maps at the pro level. Ohana evidently plays out fine and is well liked at the pro level. Is it? As far as i know many people complain about that it forces sentry/immortal pushes in ZvP and it's also not the nicest map to play TvP on. I'm not sure where you it from that it is 'well liked'.
Your whole view of mapping seems to be from the very narrow point of view of your own experience playing the game. Instead, why don't you try taking a step back and look at the discipline of map design in a broader sense? Or in reverse? You think 5 bases is fine because you never mass expand? Ohana and Icarus are literally the only maps in competitive use with 5 bases per player, that does say something.
Like I said, I don't like Ohana, I don't like to play on it and I don't like to watch games on it because they always come down to either 2base all ins or turtle deathball fests with mech, or your racial equivalent, this has nothing to do with my playstyle, this is what happens on the pro level with it because the map forces that kind of play with its low expansion count and layout of the third and natural.
If you want to conclude that map making isn't a science because we as map makers don't look at it scientifically then I guess you'd be right. But the fact that in theory, given the right expertise/time/money, you could write a computer program that simulates hundreds of thousands of games on a map and outputs meaningful data that could be used to advance map design to me indicates that 'science' isn't that far off. By that argument, making a cup of tea is a science because you could theoretically make a computer program simulating thousands of cup poors and so achieve the ultimate cup of earl grey tea.
Until that is actually done, it is not a science. You might as well argue that everything is a science since everything can ultimately be understood by simulating the interactions between elementary particles. but until people actually understand it in that way and do it, it's not a science. Writing such a program would also instantly trampoline you to immortalized status in terms of artificial intelligence research, it'd be an uncanny achievement,.
Evidently the way we see map design is much closer to architects than scientists, but I don't think that discounts the ability for someone to look at it scientifically if they wanted to. It discounts it because it's practically unachievable, there exists no computer today that could run such a program of which you speak. You have better luck simulating the entire galaxy on a computer than this.
|
On January 23 2013 17:02 neptunusfisk wrote:
No, mapmaking is not science. Move on.
Lol. Oh okay. Thanks.
Sisko I'm curious what you think of cosmology. In that field there's nothing to do but look at data.
Are you trying to say that until a given field has a particular floor of knowledge established, it's not science? When did biology become a science and not "looking at animals"?
|
On January 24 2013 02:00 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 17:02 neptunusfisk wrote:
No, mapmaking is not science. Move on. Lol. Oh okay. Thanks. Sisko I'm curious what you think of cosmology. In that field there's nothing to do but look at data. Cosmology is very much the black sheep of physics if I'm completely honest. It's a giant patchwork. It's exact theoretical physics in that it is firmly routed in mathematics, the point is that it is also extremely inaccurate (at this point in time) and the errors are basically patched out. The methodology is fine, the science is simply in its infancy and therefore inaccurate.
I'm sure you heard of dark matter? Well, what is it? Well, it's quite simple. The mathematical model says there should be x amount of mass in the galaxy to make it work, but observational data only shows about 10% of that mass to actually exist. So what do we do? We call the rest dark matter, matter that has a mass but we can't see. Brilliant isn't it? That's the kind of patchworks that run rampant throughout cosmology.
Are you trying to say that until a given field has a particular floor of knowledge established, it's not science? When did biology become a science and not "looking at animals"? Science is not a study of a given field, science is a way of studying a given field. For instance, both evolutionary biology and intelligent design look at the origin of species, but evolutionary biology does so within the scientific method and intelligent design does no such thing. A subject is not a science, what is a science or not is how you approach and study that subject. currently there is no scientific approach ever undertaking to study the field of SC2 mapping, but I'm sure you could theoretically do it.
Similarly, it is theoretically possible of course to describe evolutionary psychology via the parametres of interaction between elementary particles, but no one has ever done that and the study of evolutionary psychology as done to today borders on pseudoscience.
|
nice offtopic talk no one cares about
|
Since this has produced fewer answers than it has discursive overflow...
nice offtopic talk no one cares about
Yeah. I'm done.
|
On January 23 2013 22:21 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 22:10 iamcaustic wrote:On January 23 2013 21:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:On January 23 2013 18:35 iamcaustic wrote:I simply have no idea how this map is going to turn out. There are parts in the layout I love and parts I really don't like. On January 21 2013 23:39 Sumadin wrote:On January 21 2013 21:58 algue wrote:I really think this map needs one more base below the third but I still like it How did i miss that? Yea 4.5 bases per player is... a questionable decision. And even then 1 of the bases for each player is centered thus practically impossible to secure. Even on Ohana with 5 bases per player the low number of bases have been a frequent problem, even without centered bases. What are they thinking exactly? Suddenly i am not too sure about this map. Eh? The number of bases on Ohana isn't a problem at all. What on earth would give you this idea? It's personal, it is a problem to me. I don't like it, I often get mined out on Ohana. It's one of my least liked maps for a number of reasons, one being the amount of bases. Together with the extremely linear expansion progression. THis is what I liked more about Korhal Compound though I would not mind 2 centre half bases added to the map on the lowground. But his fifth could also be your fourth or even third. Same with Dual Sight, it wasn't clear which gold was whose, it adds something interesting when you can expand both ways. To put it like this, any map good for mech is a bad map in my opinion because it encourages turtly play and discourages multi pronged aggression and doesn't have a lot of bases, which is of course something that enables mech. The map is pretty basic and straightforward for sure, but most games don't even get to mining out 5 bases, if you're even lucky to reach 5 bases in the first place. Saying you often get mined out on Ohana is either an extreme exaggeration or your opponents never attack you for some reason. Maybe you mine out 3 bases and have a hard time taking a 4th/5th, but that's very different from mining out the map. 5 bases provide enough resources to get you hour-long games, it's just a matter of collecting all the resources. I beg to differ, I get mined out because I attack a lot and force a lot of engagements and thereby keep losing units. IT's nt an exaggeration, I'm very comfortable playing a 90 SCV or 110 probe/drone game and Ohana leaves me mined out. As far as progamers go, they adapt to Ohana, they tend t play styles that get mined out less quickly because you expand slower with it, mech and other related deathballish styles like BL/Infestor are quite popular there simply because the map doesn't give you the amount of bases for proper muta/ling/bane which requires you to expand more quickly and rely on the mobility of your army to defend. 5 Base Zerg is pretty much required for good muta/ling/bane ZvT. Personally, I think all those deathballish and passive playstyles are extremely boring to watch which is sort of what a low expo game forces.
Forgive me, but I'm highly skeptical of your claims. Do you have a few replays you could share? I'm genuinely curious how someone could mine out Ohana on a consistent basis, namely the style of play involved that doesn't have their opponent tap out before that point. Anyway, if you're willing, just shoot me a PM as I don't wanna derail this thread any further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
