|
On March 14 2013 05:05 Qikz wrote:
I'm unsure why you bring up Antiga Shipyard being forced cross, that isn't rotationally symmetrical.
Rotational symmetry works in this instance and even on close as every distance is the same. The entire map is symmetrical so it's impossible for one position to be a better spawn than another. Antiga was only broken in some instances where you could siege/blink from the mains into the other guys third.
If you spawn in close (horizontally) for instance, neither of you are going to have an easy time to take that in base third, however if you spawn vertically or even cross then you both can take it with the threat of an attack from behind the minerals (which is great btw, I love this design <3)
There's little to no point having 4 player maps if you force them all cross, it removes what makes 4 player maps good, the fact it's not cut and dry where they start and differing positions change how the game plays out (expansion layouts etc)
It's not hard to make a rotational map really imbalanced... Antiga, the clockwise player's third gets closer to the opponent while the counterclockwise player's third does not. A lot of times, the thirds can be harder for one player than the other. But, the factors often cancel out if you get the basic balance. Like a harder fourth for one player probably means an easier fifth than the opponent.
But I agree that forced cross spawns makes 4p rotation maps pointless, unless its a 2-in-1 map where the two spawn options differ in layout (asymmetrical rotational).
[edit]
On March 14 2013 06:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 04:13 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 16:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design No it wasn't, unless you can prove it. What am I supposed to be proving, That Antiga is broken in non cross spawns, give me some numbers.
Antiga was broken in close and cross spawns, the map fucking sucks.
|
On March 14 2013 07:24 monitor wrote:
Antiga was broken in close and cross spawns, the map fucking sucks. Good sir, we misunderstand each other, when I say 'give me some numbers', I mean exactly that. You know, hard statistics with a significant sample pool to rule out the human bias that is rampant throughout the mapping and starcraft community because everyone just parrots each other.
|
On March 14 2013 07:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 07:24 monitor wrote:
Antiga was broken in close and cross spawns, the map fucking sucks. Good sir, we misunderstand each other, when I say 'give me some numbers', I mean exactly that. You know, hard statistics with a significant sample pool to rule out the human bias that is rampant throughout the mapping and starcraft community because everyone just parrots each other.
I will provide numbers, but check this too http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=70545. There are a lot of things that Artosis wrote about that apply. And there are more factors today too, like rapid change of the metagame and slow map rotation (much more extreme than late stages of BW where maps were rotated frequently and the meta was closer to stagnant). While some maps may look balanced, the gameplay could be terrible. Like Protoss could be forced to 2 base allin. Just remember that putting two spawn points back to back and evening worker damage/hp would make the game almost perfectly balanced, but we don't want that kind of gameplay. Also if you ask progamers, many may have opinions about whether a map is balanced or not that differs from simply statistics. TLPD has a lot of skill levels so what may appear balanced may not be balanced on the highest level.
Between 2011 and 2012, Antiga shipyard v1.2 had a 55.1% winrate in ZvP internationally.
Antiga Shipyard 1.1 had a 44.4% PvT winrate between creation and January 2012 in Korea. It also had a 44.4% TvZ winrate between Jan 2011 and Jan 2012. And again, 44.5% wirnate TvZ between Jan 2012 and Jan 2013.
In 2013, 1.1 also has a 14.3% PvT winrate (though a small sample size so far). 1.2 has a 43.5% TvZ winrate from Jan 2013 to current.
We could cherry pick stats to support many conclusions, but I don't think that's the right way to do it. Analyze major tournaments, watch the games, talk to progamers, look at numbers, and make educated guesses, like Artosis suggested.
[edit] It's also important to note that a map like Daybreak, with a 39.4% TvZ winrate in Korea since it was created looks like it favors Z. But I know plenty of Terrans that like the map. And if you look closer, you'll find that TvZ is 49.4% since 2013. TLDR: fuck numbers unless you have a lot of time to analyze what the meaning is behind them.
|
On March 14 2013 07:49 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 07:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 14 2013 07:24 monitor wrote:
Antiga was broken in close and cross spawns, the map fucking sucks. Good sir, we misunderstand each other, when I say 'give me some numbers', I mean exactly that. You know, hard statistics with a significant sample pool to rule out the human bias that is rampant throughout the mapping and starcraft community because everyone just parrots each other. I will provide numbers, but check this too http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=70545. There are a lot of things that Artosis wrote about that apply. And there are more factors today too, like rapid change of the metagame and slow map rotation (much more extreme than late stages of BW where maps were rotated frequently and the meta was closer to stagnant). While some maps may look balanced, the gameplay could be terrible. Like Protoss could be forced to 2 base allin. Just remember that putting two spawn points back to back and evening worker damage/hp would make the game almost perfectly balanced, but we don't want that kind of gameplay. Also if you ask progamers, many may have opinions about whether a map is balanced or not that differs from simply statistics. TLPD has a lot of skill levels so what may appear balanced may not be balanced on the highest level. Ah yes, so we should of course go by iamcaustic's personal biased opinion and not by my personal biased opinion.
Numbers may not be everything but they >>>> personal opinion. People als only play the 'numbers aren 't everything' card when numbers contradict their own personal conception, suddenly they find an excuse why the stats wouldn't be true but when numbers back them up they welcome them and use them to speak from a high ground.
Between 2011 and 2012, Antiga shipyard v1.2 had a 55.1% winrate in ZvP internationally.
Antiga Shipyard 1.1 had a 44.4% PvT winrate between creation and January 2012 in Korea. It also had a 44.4% TvZ winrate between Jan 2011 and Jan 2012. And again, 44.5% wirnate TvZ between Jan 2012 and Jan 2013.
In 2013, 1.1 also has a 14.3% PvT winrate (though a small sample size so far). 1.2 has a 43.5% TvZ winrate from Jan 2013 to current. What does this say about cross and non cross spawns?
It's also important to note that a map like Daybreak, with a 39.4% TvZ winrate in Korea since it was created looks like it favors Z. But I know plenty of Terrans that like the map. And if you look closer, you'll find that TvZ is 49.4% since 2013. TLDR: fuck numbers unless you have a lot of time to analyze what the meaning is behind them. Yeah but again, numbers might no be everything, but surely they are better than subjective opinions?
I mean, originally Leenock said that antiga was shit for ZvT while Stephano said it was a great ZvT map and was known to pick it a lot, then suddenly Leenock decided to change his mind and pick it often in ZvT. Surely Leenock and Stephano represent the apex of understanding of StarCraft and even they can't agree. An 'authoritative' opinion only works insofar every authority agrees. That's what makes the professional opinion of a doctor who says 'You 're overweight and in serious risk of heart failure' worth something, because the next doctor will most likely say the same thing or else something is wrong with the profession. If two experts can't agree with each other, then one of them, or in most cases both, aren't really experts, they can't both be right if they disagree.
|
On March 14 2013 08:17 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 07:49 monitor wrote:On March 14 2013 07:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 14 2013 07:24 monitor wrote:
Antiga was broken in close and cross spawns, the map fucking sucks. Good sir, we misunderstand each other, when I say 'give me some numbers', I mean exactly that. You know, hard statistics with a significant sample pool to rule out the human bias that is rampant throughout the mapping and starcraft community because everyone just parrots each other. I will provide numbers, but check this too http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=70545. There are a lot of things that Artosis wrote about that apply. And there are more factors today too, like rapid change of the metagame and slow map rotation (much more extreme than late stages of BW where maps were rotated frequently and the meta was closer to stagnant). While some maps may look balanced, the gameplay could be terrible. Like Protoss could be forced to 2 base allin. Just remember that putting two spawn points back to back and evening worker damage/hp would make the game almost perfectly balanced, but we don't want that kind of gameplay. Also if you ask progamers, many may have opinions about whether a map is balanced or not that differs from simply statistics. TLPD has a lot of skill levels so what may appear balanced may not be balanced on the highest level. Ah yes, so we should of course go by iamcaustic's personal biased opinion and not by my personal biased opinion. Numbers may not be everything but they >>>> personal opinion. People als only play the 'numbers aren 't everything' card when numbers contradict their own personal conception, suddenly they find an excuse why the stats wouldn't be true but when numbers back them up they welcome them and use them to speak from a high ground. Show nested quote +Between 2011 and 2012, Antiga shipyard v1.2 had a 55.1% winrate in ZvP internationally.
Antiga Shipyard 1.1 had a 44.4% PvT winrate between creation and January 2012 in Korea. It also had a 44.4% TvZ winrate between Jan 2011 and Jan 2012. And again, 44.5% wirnate TvZ between Jan 2012 and Jan 2013.
In 2013, 1.1 also has a 14.3% PvT winrate (though a small sample size so far). 1.2 has a 43.5% TvZ winrate from Jan 2013 to current. What does this say about cross and non cross spawns? Show nested quote + It's also important to note that a map like Daybreak, with a 39.4% TvZ winrate in Korea since it was created looks like it favors Z. But I know plenty of Terrans that like the map. And if you look closer, you'll find that TvZ is 49.4% since 2013. TLDR: fuck numbers unless you have a lot of time to analyze what the meaning is behind them. Yeah but again, numbers might no be everything, but surely they are better than subjective opinions? I mean, originally Leenock said that antiga was shit for ZvT while Stephano said it was a great ZvT map and was known to pick it a lot, then suddenly Leenock decided to change his mind and pick it often in ZvT. Surely Leenock and Stephano represent the apex of understanding of StarCraft and even they can't agree. An 'authoritative' opinion only works insofar every authority agrees. That's what makes the professional opinion of a doctor who says 'You 're overweight and in serious risk of heart failure' worth something, because the next doctor will most likely say the same thing or else something is wrong with the profession. If two experts can't agree with each other, then one of them, or in most cases both, aren't really experts, they can't both be right if they disagree.
It isn't a matter of whether numbers are more valuable than personal opinion. I'm just stating the fact that numbers are a real indicator of whether a map is good. They certainly don't show whether gameplay is good. And they also don't always show if it's balanced.
Anyway, the argument about forcing cross spawns isn't about balance. It's about making 4p maps entirely pointless. Close spawns can be balanced, I'm 100% sure. If you want to show me the statistics that you take the time to research about how close maps never worked in BW, go ahead. But in SC2, I don't think we have any maps that are popular enough to make conclusions. Once we get well designed 4p rotational maps, all will be well!
|
On March 14 2013 08:31 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 08:17 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 14 2013 07:49 monitor wrote:On March 14 2013 07:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 14 2013 07:24 monitor wrote:
Antiga was broken in close and cross spawns, the map fucking sucks. Good sir, we misunderstand each other, when I say 'give me some numbers', I mean exactly that. You know, hard statistics with a significant sample pool to rule out the human bias that is rampant throughout the mapping and starcraft community because everyone just parrots each other. I will provide numbers, but check this too http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=70545. There are a lot of things that Artosis wrote about that apply. And there are more factors today too, like rapid change of the metagame and slow map rotation (much more extreme than late stages of BW where maps were rotated frequently and the meta was closer to stagnant). While some maps may look balanced, the gameplay could be terrible. Like Protoss could be forced to 2 base allin. Just remember that putting two spawn points back to back and evening worker damage/hp would make the game almost perfectly balanced, but we don't want that kind of gameplay. Also if you ask progamers, many may have opinions about whether a map is balanced or not that differs from simply statistics. TLPD has a lot of skill levels so what may appear balanced may not be balanced on the highest level. Ah yes, so we should of course go by iamcaustic's personal biased opinion and not by my personal biased opinion. Numbers may not be everything but they >>>> personal opinion. People als only play the 'numbers aren 't everything' card when numbers contradict their own personal conception, suddenly they find an excuse why the stats wouldn't be true but when numbers back them up they welcome them and use them to speak from a high ground. Between 2011 and 2012, Antiga shipyard v1.2 had a 55.1% winrate in ZvP internationally.
Antiga Shipyard 1.1 had a 44.4% PvT winrate between creation and January 2012 in Korea. It also had a 44.4% TvZ winrate between Jan 2011 and Jan 2012. And again, 44.5% wirnate TvZ between Jan 2012 and Jan 2013.
In 2013, 1.1 also has a 14.3% PvT winrate (though a small sample size so far). 1.2 has a 43.5% TvZ winrate from Jan 2013 to current. What does this say about cross and non cross spawns? It's also important to note that a map like Daybreak, with a 39.4% TvZ winrate in Korea since it was created looks like it favors Z. But I know plenty of Terrans that like the map. And if you look closer, you'll find that TvZ is 49.4% since 2013. TLDR: fuck numbers unless you have a lot of time to analyze what the meaning is behind them. Yeah but again, numbers might no be everything, but surely they are better than subjective opinions? I mean, originally Leenock said that antiga was shit for ZvT while Stephano said it was a great ZvT map and was known to pick it a lot, then suddenly Leenock decided to change his mind and pick it often in ZvT. Surely Leenock and Stephano represent the apex of understanding of StarCraft and even they can't agree. An 'authoritative' opinion only works insofar every authority agrees. That's what makes the professional opinion of a doctor who says 'You 're overweight and in serious risk of heart failure' worth something, because the next doctor will most likely say the same thing or else something is wrong with the profession. If two experts can't agree with each other, then one of them, or in most cases both, aren't really experts, they can't both be right if they disagree. It isn't a matter of whether numbers are more valuable than personal opinion. I'm just stating the fact that numbers are a real indicator of whether a map is good. They certainly don't show whether gameplay is good. And they also don't always show if it's balanced. 'good' is completely and utterly subjective. If I say incineration zone is good despite horrible balance numbers you can't disprove or prove it because it's an opinion. If I say incineration zone is 'balanced' you have a case on your hand if you can show it has like 25% winrate in whatever matchup. You can't debate good, it's like debating if a film is enjoyable.
Anyway, the argument about forcing cross spawns isn't about balance. It's about making 4p maps entirely pointless. Close spawns can be balanced, I'm 100% sure. If you want to show me the statistics that you take the time to research about how close maps never worked in BW, go ahead. But in SC2, I don't think we have any maps that are popular enough to make conclusions. Once we get well designed 4p rotational maps, all will be well! But this discussion is the reverse, it's my contention that close pos antiga isn't horribly broken or imbalanced or leads to bad gameplay or whatever. Iamcaustic argues that it is so I said 'prove it'.
|
On March 14 2013 08:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:
'good' is completely and utterly subjective. If I say incineration zone is good despite horrible balance numbers you can't disprove or prove it because it's an opinion. If I say incineration zone is 'balanced' you have a case on your hand if you can show it has like 25% winrate in whatever matchup. You can't debate good, it's like debating if a film is enjoyable.
I didn't think I actually needed to write what good is, but no, what I'm talking about isn't all that subjective. I consider a good map to have the following elements: a consistent concept, innovative features that encourage diverse gameplay, terrain/expansion layout that raises the skill cap, balance, and lastly, pleasant aesthetics.
Antiga has a shitty concept, terrible middle (gold bases back to back + highground) that makes no sense for the concept, inviable fourth expos, and minimal innovation. These aren't things that can be debated. I suppose some people could say they enjoy it, but it isn't a good map. Especially because it's gameplay is so 1-dimensional because of the middle.
Infact... you can debate whether a movie is good. Not enjoyable, but good, yes. I am into the art side of film making- I don't care for many of the hollywood style entertainment movies; I like Scorsese, Tarentino, Hitchcock, etc. If you want to argue what makes a movie good, bring it on.
But this discussion is the reverse, it's my contention that close pos antiga isn't horribly broken or imbalanced or leads to bad gameplay or whatever. Iamcaustic argues that it is so I said 'prove it'.
Oh. Well I guess I agree with you that the close spawns aren't much worse than cross. The map just sucks no matter what spawns you get!
[edit] formatting
|
On March 14 2013 08:48 monitor wrote:
I didn't think I actually needed to write what good is, but no, what I'm talking about isn't all that subjective. I consider a good map to have the following elements: You do, not everyone does, that's the catch.
a consistent concept How is a concept consistent or inconsistent? I don't follow.
innovative features that encourage diverse gameplay Okay, so basically every map in the current GSL pool except Icarus is objectively bad?
I would not call that fact that currently 19/20 WoL PvZ's opens with an FFE or 19/20 ZvT's open with a hatch first 'diverse gameplay', nor would I consider any of those maps except icarus innovating at all.
terrain/expansion layout that raises the skill cap I actually doubt this, truth be told. I don't believe people at this point when they say they want the skill cap raised because when it is they complain about stuff being too hard. Consider the ultralisk as an example, it gets stuck a lot, makes it difficult to use, requires flanking and micro to be effective yet the same people who demand a skill cap complain when they can't use ultralisks the same way as pros. Also consider hard to take and defend bases. People like their bases easy to defend in the end and like to be able to defend them by walking through them when the enemy is there rather than needing the map awareness to already be there befre the enemy arrives.
,
and lastly, pleasant aesthetics
Completely subjective.
Antiga has a shitty concept 'shitty' is subjective and I'm not sure what it has to do with 'consistent'.
terrible middle (gold bases back to back + highground) I think it's a good idea, gold bases harassable from a centre high ground, I don't have any problems with it.
that makes no sense for the concept What is 'the concept', did you speak to the designers of Antiga to get what their 'concept' for the map was?
inviable fourth expos. What is 'inviable' about them? Sure they are a bit harder to take than on some maps but they aren't impossible tot ake, they are less viable not inviable. Which raises the skill ceiling of the game. Holding a fourth is hard on Antiga, you need good map awareness to pull it of.
minimal innovation. Pretty much, but no more or less than Say Ohana or Whirlwind or whatever GSL map.
These aren't things that can be debated. I just did, and so would Stephano apparently.
I suppose some people could say they enjoy it, but it isn't a good map. Especially because it's gameplay is so 1-dimensional because of the middle. Yeah, or you just basically don't like this map personally and can't accept that there are people that do?
Infact... you can debate whether a movie is good. Not enjoyable, but good, yes. I am into the art side of film making- I don't care for many of the hollywood style entertainment movies; I like Scorsese, Tarentino, Hitchcock, etc. If you want to argue what makes a movie good, bring it on. Please don't tell me you actually believe this. Hey my favourite films are not hollywood, I like arthouse films myself and very few of them. But I'm not going to say they are 'better' than hollywood films, in fact, from the technical aspect you could well argue they are worse, sure they have a plot that appeals to me more. But in the end, money buys good production values in this world and arthouse films don't have that kind of capital to work with. If they had they would probably invest a bit more into it.
Show nested quote +But this discussion is the reverse, it's my contention that close pos antiga isn't horribly broken or imbalanced or leads to bad gameplay or whatever. Iamcaustic argues that it is so I said 'prove it'.
Oh. Well I guess I agree with you that the close spawns aren't much worse than cross. The map just sucks no matter what spawns you get! [edit] formatting
- the ramp leading from the natural is a 3 width ramp, this is ideal because it gives reason to both nexus wall and ramp wall,, thereby creating variety, with a 2 width ramp there is no reason to nexus wall any more. Nexus or ramp walling on antiga is a matter of personal subjective preference.
- the main base on antiga is reaperable, an art that seems to get lost a lot
- the central gold bases allow for unique strategies that make use of them, such as tihngs like snute busts which can't happen on any other map
- it's a map where both muta and infestor play is very viable and possible unlike say CK which is generally perceived to be not that good for mutas or whirlwind which is considered not that good for infestors
- there is great variety in which third and fourth base people take, the gold bases make it possible and rewarding to take the gold as a third in some cases, if you want the gold as fourth or another base relies on a great many things.
Antiga sees a lot more variety than say Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom or Ohana (every PvZ we play with soulolololol), it's also a map that sees a lot more back and fourth action rather than games coming down to turtling and single engagements.. The middle facilitates that since central gold bases promote people to expand forward to a vurlernable location creating tension.
So yeah, honestly, this stuff is all pretty subjective. I mean, we're disagreeing and arguing about it, that makes it subjective. The mere fact that you continue to debate it with me makes it subjective. If I claimed a objective falsehood you would just say 'lol no' and walk away. Are you really going to spend time arguing with someone who think that 2+2=5?
|
On March 14 2013 09:10 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Are you really going to spend time arguing with someone who think that 2+2=5?
No.
[edit]
Btw, if I took the mindset that quality doesn't exist because it's subjective, I don't know where I'd be in life.
|
On March 14 2013 05:05 Qikz wrote:
I'm unsure why you bring up Antiga Shipyard being forced cross, that isn't rotationally symmetrical (or have I got the terms mixed up?)
Rotational symmetry works in this instance and even on close as every distance is the same. The entire map is symmetrical so it's impossible for one position to be a better spawn than another. Antiga was only broken in some instances where you could siege/blink from the mains into the other guys third.
If you spawn in close (horizontally) for instance, neither of you are going to have an easy time to take that in base third, however if you spawn vertically or even cross then you both can take it with the threat of an attack from behind the minerals (which is great btw, I love this design <3)
There's little to no point having 4 player maps if you force them all cross, it removes what makes 4 player maps good, the fact it's not cut and dry where they start and differing positions change how the game plays out (expansion layouts etc)
The biggest issue was attacking the main base of your opponent with things like Terran elevator pushes and blink stalker, if you got the good spawn (e.g. spawning top left. vs. bottom left, or bottom left vs. bottom right, etc.). Specifically, the travel distance to abuse this terrain feature was too short, whereas it's a more reasonable distance in cross-only. Third bases only became an issue if the games reached that point (and many didn't, in adjacent spawns).
When dealing with 1-2 bases, Antiga is effectively rotationally symmetrical. Mid-map is what varies depending on spawns.
On March 14 2013 06:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:
That Antiga is broken in non cross spawns, give me some numbers.
If you're that curious for the stats, hit up GSL, MLG, IPL, IEM, Dreamhack, and Blizzard. They're gonna have way better stats for you explaining why they forced Antiga cross-only than you'd ever get from me. MLG especially; they're notorious for asking for stats before making a decision regarding their map pools (this is why they're often behind the curve).
You done pretending as if Antiga being broken in non-cross is my own personal assumption, rather than the unanimous agreement of both professional tournaments and the game publisher?
|
On March 14 2013 11:00 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 09:10 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Are you really going to spend time arguing with someone who think that 2+2=5?
No. [edit] Btw, if I took the mindset that quality doesn't exist because it's subjective, I don't know where I'd be in life. That's exactly why people don't do it, they want to believe they are right and others are wrong rather than that they disagree with people. Or the almighty scary realization that morals are subjective, imagine that, it's subjective that murder and rape are wrong, and people are sooooo scared by this idea, but ultimately it's true.
When is the last time someone who believed these things are objective didn't believe that everything they enjoyed was objectively better?
On March 14 2013 11:15 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 06:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:
That Antiga is broken in non cross spawns, give me some numbers.
If you're that curious for the stats, hit up GSL, MLG, IPL, IEM, Dreamhack, and Blizzard. They're gonna have way better stats for you explaining why they forced Antiga cross-only than you'd ever get from me. MLG especially; they're notorious for asking for stats before making a decision regarding their map pools (this is why they're often behind the curve). And have you seen those stats?
You done pretending as if Antiga being broken in non-cross is my own personal assumption, rather than the unanimous agreement of both professional tournaments and the game publisher? No, I'm calling it parroting, tournaments give people what they want in the end. People will repeat anything if you believe if often enough. People believe you can catch a cold from being in the cold for one because it's repeated over and over, people believe in God en masse. In Korea people believe you can die from hypothermia if you leave a fan on at night. People will believe stuff if it's repeated often enough.
How could we even have tournament statistics on cross spawns Antiga, the sample size is waaaaaaaaay too small to say anything meaningful from it.
However, it is my own personal experience as a random player that the map is relatively balanced for all spawns. I personally feel you have the best shot in ZvT if you do not spawn cross but counterclockwise to your opponent and there is no gold base between you. Not that it's super significant but this spawn allows you to put a creep tumour on the Terran's third with an overlord trick from your main and spread creep from there which basically can give you creep at his natural before he takes a third.
|
On March 14 2013 11:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
That's exactly why people don't do it, they want to believe they are right and others are wrong rather than that they disagree with people. Or the almighty scary realization that morals are subjective, imagine that, it's subjective that murder and rape are wrong, and people are sooooo scared by this idea, but ultimately it's true.
When is the last time someone who believed these things are objective didn't believe that everything they enjoyed was objectively better?
Honestly I thought about that for a while in 7th grade and realized that thinking that way wasn't going to help me improve at any of my interests. Yes, if you believe that there is nothing inherently natural about morals, then of course ethics are subjective. I don't agree that the things I do are inherently better than things someone else does. Albeit, I can't understand enjoying dance as much as I enjoy music (I'm a music major in college), but I don't think music in inherently better. If you don't think there are any truths to humanity, then it's easy to end up thinking your life is pointless. It's a stage in development most teens in puberty go through imo, not to be offensive. And by the way, murder and rape are wrong because they go against nature: compassion, respect, etc. I suppose you could argue that a society could exist, hypothetically, that had no problem with rape or murder. But I'm saying that would be wrong.
[edit]
If you're in the mood for some mapmaking reading, check out Nightmarjoo's guide here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95409. He was a really intelligent bw/sc2 player and knows a lot about maps since the release of bw.
|
On March 14 2013 12:39 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 11:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
That's exactly why people don't do it, they want to believe they are right and others are wrong rather than that they disagree with people. Or the almighty scary realization that morals are subjective, imagine that, it's subjective that murder and rape are wrong, and people are sooooo scared by this idea, but ultimately it's true.
When is the last time someone who believed these things are objective didn't believe that everything they enjoyed was objectively better?
Honestly I thought about that for a while in 7th grade and realized that thinking that way wasn't going to help me improve at any of my interests. That is completely irrelevant to if it's true or not. Truth of the matter is that if the earth is round or flat has no real baring on my life but I'd be a fool to think it's flat with all the evidence to the contrary. I don't even think about it all that much. This is no different.
Yes, if you believe that there is nothing inherently natural about morals, then of course ethics are subjective. I don't agree that the things I do are inherently better than things someone else does. Albeit, I can't understand enjoying dance as much as I enjoy music (I'm a music major in college), but I don't think music in inherently better. If you don't think there are any truths to humanity, then it's easy to end up thinking your life is pointless. But surely life is pointless. We came to be via random interaction of elementary particles to form complex molecules, eventually chemical molecules led to organic molecules et voilla natural selection arrives 3 billion years later at the Homo sapiens sapiens. This wasn't part of some grand plan by some intelligence, this just randomly happened because laws of quantum chemestry. There is no purpose or meaning to living or dying, people just live and die.
It's a stage in development most teens in puberty go through imo, not to be offensive. Well, I'm not a teenager.
And by the way, murder and rape are wrong because they go against nature: Surely you do not believe that murder goes against nature? 50% of the animals on this planet murder to survive. Murder is one of the most natural things, it happens everywhere, it turns out that if you A: want to eat something or B: want something not to eat you or C: want something not to mate with what you want to mate with. Murdering it tends to accomplish all those three. Which essentially is all every creature on this planet does. Eat, survive, reproduce. Rinse and repeat. And please don't come with 'humanity is the only animal that murders its own kind', because that is just blatantly not true.
compassion, respect And that makes it wrong? I'm pretty sure squashing my opponent in a game of StarCraft goes against that as well. My opponent must lose for me to win. Just as my food must die for me to live. Just as thousands of American soldiers and random civilians must die for George Bush to... continue drive expensive cars I guess.
etc. I suppose you could argue that a society could exist, hypothetically, that had no problem with rape or murder. But I'm saying that would be wrong. Yeah, but that's like.. your opinion man. Some of the most advanced civilizations were built upon slavery and murder. Turns out killing people is a very good way to enslave their women and make them do your work without having to pay them.
I read this one actually. I think the point is that I consider all these things, hell, I even agree with most of you people about what will lead to what. I just don't agree with what we want to end up with with a lot of traditionalists.
Most people here like to enable passive macro games. I like to disable them. A lot of people like 'planned strategies', I don't. I think they go against everything that makes an RTS cerebral. A lot of people don't like it that you instantly die if you make a small mistake. I love that fine line in matchups like PvP and ZvZ where the game can be over in a second if you make one small mistake. So I try to make my maps to accomodate that. I mean, it's blatantly obvious that a lot of the maps I make will turn into semi all innish slugfests but that's the kind of games I enjoy. We all make maps to enable the kind of gameplay we see and I don't like planned builds.
|
On March 14 2013 11:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
However, it is my own personal experience as a random player that the map is relatively balanced for all spawns. I personally feel you have the best shot in ZvT if you do not spawn cross but counterclockwise to your opponent and there is no gold base between you. Not that it's super significant but this spawn allows you to put a creep tumour on the Terran's third with an overlord trick from your main and spread creep from there which basically can give you creep at his natural before he takes a third.
For those of you watching, let me translate this paragraph for you.
On March 14 2013 11:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I'm ignoring the decisions of professional tournaments, the game developer Blizzard, and the vast outcries of the community because I'm personally able to exploit these unintended balance issues on Antiga Shipyard in my inconsequential, non-pro level games. I justify this ridiculous stance with the fact that I play random, which should shield me from criticism about my disconnection with reality.
I also expect every individual to have a prepared presentation with excessive data on why their argument is correct, despite their argument being the accepted reality as demonstrated by Blizzard Entertainment, lest their argument be hereby labelled "subjective" by the ultimate authority: me. However, I am exempted from having to do so myself. It's only fair that way.
EDIT: I remember us having this conversation once before, Siskos. You adamantly denied that ramp blocks were imbalanced, yet look where we are. Those unbuildable rocks/plates/bricks are in the game for a reason.
EDIT 2: Anyway, I'm done playing with the troll; I don't really want to muck up Monitor's thread any more than it already has been.
|
On March 14 2013 12:58 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But surely life is pointless. We came to be via random interaction of elementary particles to form complex molecules, eventually chemical molecules led to organic molecules et voilla natural selection arrives 3 billion years later at the Homo sapiens sapiens. This wasn't part of some grand plan by some intelligence, this just randomly happened because laws of quantum chemestry. There is no purpose or meaning to living or dying, people just live and die. Beautiful, isn't it?
Surely you do not believe that murder goes against nature? 50% of the animals on this planet murder to survive. Murder is one of the most natural things, it happens everywhere, it turns out that if you A: want to eat something or B: want something not to eat you or C: want something not to mate with what you want to mate with. Murdering it tends to accomplish all those three. Which essentially is all every creature on this planet does. Eat, survive, reproduce. Rinse and repeat. And please don't come with 'humanity is the only animal that murders its own kind', because that is just blatantly not true. Technically there is a difference between murder and 'killing to eat and survive', which is probably more correctly referred to as hunting? There is even a difference between murder and manslaughter in the justice systems. Murder is usually fueled by some sort of rage and has intent, manslaughter is something like "you weren't really intending to kill someone but you did...". I know of a case where someone kept breaking into a persons home so the home owner rigged a shotgun to fire at the window he kept breaking in through. It killed the guy. A lot of people wanted the home owner to go away for murder but it was the US so it was dumbed down to manslaughter because the home owner was able to argue his intent wasn't to kill, it was to defend his property. (yea, who knew shotguns kill at ~8 feet?) Not the best example but i felt it pertained. In the animal kingdom pretty much everything is driven by instinct so its a little difficult where you might draw the line between murder and animalslaughter.
Yeah, but that's like.. your opinion man. Some of the most advanced civilizations were built upon slavery and murder. Turns out killing people is a very good way to enslave their women and make them do your work without having to pay them. Earlier you were debating morals being subjective vs objective. I would have made a claim they're objective and that it just takes time for humanity to develop enough to properly realize these morals and to overwrite the instincts that impair these morals from allowing the whole of society to flourish. The reason i say that is because I think those times where killing (as opposed to murdering, killing would usually occurs in war(lets spare ourselves the discussion of the occasions of war and which are unjust VS which are)) and murder could lead to slavery were times where greater morals simply were not properly perceived or respected. I tie this back to morals being objective because I think you can solely go off of the principal 'Treat others as you wish to be treated' and you actually have a pretty concrete, non subjective definition of morals. Disregarding of course differences between people that simply having good perspective taking skills can accommodate.
There might also be some debate that women have been slaves since the dawn of time which was probably a pretty tough time, survival wise. Greed comes from a very basic survival instinct and when the fundamentals of survival are not, or hardly, being met its not hard to imagine how quickly morals might fade. And then some cult comes along and allows it. And then more cults follow along. And then it becomes so ingrained in culture (id never refer to this as civilization) that women are property until...1920ish(?) was when Canada started giving women full rights, or at least the movements began. Im afraid im not entirely educated on this matter for other places. Apparently women in North American aboriginal tribes were not considered nor treated like slaves in the slightest but this might be more of an anomaly or entirely false.
I find it awfully depressing to realize how long it was that man would rather have more 'stuff' rather than cosmically-generated perfect equals that are free and happy.
I like all the early game overlord positions you give zerg. As i say that i also recall saying that when first playing korhal compound.
|
On March 14 2013 15:03 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 11:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
However, it is my own personal experience as a random player that the map is relatively balanced for all spawns. I personally feel you have the best shot in ZvT if you do not spawn cross but counterclockwise to your opponent and there is no gold base between you. Not that it's super significant but this spawn allows you to put a creep tumour on the Terran's third with an overlord trick from your main and spread creep from there which basically can give you creep at his natural before he takes a third. For those of you watching, let me translate this paragraph for you. Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 11:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I'm ignoring the decisions of professional tournaments, the game developer Blizzard, and the vast outcries of the community because I'm personally able to exploit these unintended balance issues on Antiga Shipyard in my inconsequential, non-pro level games. I justify this ridiculous stance with the fact that I play random, which should shield me from criticism about my disconnection with reality.
I also expect every individual to have a prepared presentation with excessive data on why their argument is correct, despite their argument being the accepted reality as demonstrated by Blizzard Entertainment, lest their argument be hereby labelled "subjective" by the ultimate authority: me. However, I am exempted from having to do so myself. It's only fair that way.
EDIT: I remember us having this conversation once before, Siskos. You adamantly denied that ramp blocks were imbalanced, yet look where we are. Those unbuildable rocks/plates/bricks are in the game for a reason. EDIT 2: Anyway, I'm done playing with the troll; I don't really want to muck up Monitor's thread any more than it already has been. Let me translate this for you:
"Herp derp I still haven't proven anything, argumentum ad populum ftw to respond to something which accuses me of just relying on argumenta ad populum instead of actually coming with any proof for my ideas."
Edit: By the way, this can just as well be argued 'Gee, tournaments have used antiga for a very long time,t his means it must be an amazing map and anyone who disagrees is arrogant." or "Gee, tournaments don't like rotating map pools, this must mean..."
On March 14 2013 15:50 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:58 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But surely life is pointless. We came to be via random interaction of elementary particles to form complex molecules, eventually chemical molecules led to organic molecules et voilla natural selection arrives 3 billion years later at the Homo sapiens sapiens. This wasn't part of some grand plan by some intelligence, this just randomly happened because laws of quantum chemestry. There is no purpose or meaning to living or dying, people just live and die. Beautiful, isn't it? I see nothing beautiful or ugly about it.
Show nested quote +Surely you do not believe that murder goes against nature? 50% of the animals on this planet murder to survive. Murder is one of the most natural things, it happens everywhere, it turns out that if you A: want to eat something or B: want something not to eat you or C: want something not to mate with what you want to mate with. Murdering it tends to accomplish all those three. Which essentially is all every creature on this planet does. Eat, survive, reproduce. Rinse and repeat. And please don't come with 'humanity is the only animal that murders its own kind', because that is just blatantly not true. Technically there is a difference between murder and 'killing to eat and survive', which is probably more correctly referred to as hunting? There is even a difference between murder and manslaughter in the justice systems. Murder is usually fueled by some sort of rage and has intent, manslaughter is something like "you weren't really intending to kill someone but you did...". I know of a case where someone kept breaking into a persons home so the home owner rigged a shotgun to fire at the window he kept breaking in through. It killed the guy. A lot of people wanted the home owner to go away for murder but it was the US so it was dumbed down to manslaughter because the home owner was able to argue his intent wasn't to kill, it was to defend his property. (yea, who knew shotguns kill at ~8 feet?) Not the best example but i felt it pertained. In the animal kingdom pretty much everything is driven by instinct so its a little difficult where you might draw the line between murder and animalslaughter.
Or are you telling me it is not murder if he decided to later eat that person he killed with the rigged shotgun?
Whether you kill because you want to eliminate a buisness rival, to feed you, to protect your property, ultimately your intend is to remove a life because your interests lie with it in some reason.
Show nested quote +Yeah, but that's like.. your opinion man. Some of the most advanced civilizations were built upon slavery and murder. Turns out killing people is a very good way to enslave their women and make them do your work without having to pay them. Earlier you were debating morals being subjective vs objective. I would have made a claim they're objective and that it just takes time for humanity to develop enough to properly realize these morals and to overwrite the instincts that impair these morals from allowing the whole of society to flourish. The reason i say that is because I think those times where killing (as opposed to murdering, killing would usually occurs in war(lets spare ourselves the discussion of the occasions of war and which are unjust VS which are)) and murder could lead to slavery were times where greater morals simply were not properly perceived or respected. I tie this back to morals being objective because I think you can solely go off of the principal 'Treat others as you wish to be treated' and you actually have a pretty concrete, non subjective definition of morals. Disregarding of course differences between people that simply having good perspective taking skills can accommodate.
There might also be some debate that women have been slaves since the dawn of time which was probably a pretty tough time, survival wise. Greed comes from a very basic survival instinct and when the fundamentals of survival are not, or hardly, being met its not hard to imagine how quickly morals might fade. And then some cult comes along and allows it. And then more cults follow along. And then it becomes so ingrained in culture (id never refer to this as civilization) that women are property until...1920ish(?) was when Canada started giving women full rights, or at least the movements began. Im afraid im not entirely educated on this matter for other places. Apparently women in North American aboriginal tribes were not considered nor treated like slaves in the slightest but this might be more of an anomaly or entirely false. Even in today's society, women aren't equal, let's face it, they are on paper, but they aren't in practic,e this s quite natural, this occurs in every species, life isn't fair. Almost all species have a dominant sex. In a lot of insects it's the female, in most primates it's the male. Males are stronger than females and therefore able to subjugate them and so they do.
|
Once again, I will point out that win rates =/= balance. Even apart from that, Antiga is a bad map. The ladder version with gold bases and all spawns was even worse than the tournament version. This is immediately ascertainable when you see pro players quit out of their ladder games on stream in close spawns prior to the usage of tournament version with cross spawns, because it's not a game worth playing.
As an aside, I think you need to watch some Sam Harris.
@caustic: You are an accomplished linguist.
|
Sisko, if you saw a obese person on the street would you say that they were unhealthy?
'Health' as a concept is just as subjective as the 'Quality' of a map. There are some things (numbers) which we can look at but they are only indicative of the whole picture. Knowing that someone is 14 stone tells us nothing about how healthy they are, you have to look at the individual person as a whole.
If I was to make a scale of health where one end was 'nothing wrong with this person' and the other end was 'dead', there would be levels of health between those points but no way to measure that health with numbers. Just because there is a certain amount of subjectivity in determining how healthy someone is doesn't mean that the concept of health is wholey subjective and meaningless.
The more we understand the human body, the more accurate calls we can make on how healthy someone is. The same goes for ethics, if we were to fully understand what made people 'happy' (for lack of a better word) on the level of the brain, we could say that *action* has a net decrease in *happiness/wellness* for those people involved and therefore would be an unethical thing to do. That's not subjective, it's just not feasible with our current knowledge/tools, but that doesn't mean that we can't say for instance that murder is likely to decrease the *wellness* of those involved (for one person permanently) and so therefore is generally an unethical thing to do.
EDIT
lol, I wrote this before EatThePath's comment. Definitely go check out Sam Harris.
|
On March 15 2013 01:07 OxyGenesis wrote:
Sisko, if you saw a obese person on the street would you say that they were unhealthy? Probably,
'Health' as a concept is just as subjective as the 'Quality' of a map. There are some things (numbers) which we can look at but they are only indicative of the whole picture. Knowing that someone is 14 stone tells us nothing about how healthy they are, you have to look at the individual person as a whole. Hardly, it is far less subjective, you can even come with a working definition of the concept via the concept of lifespan. Most clinical trials in investigation of healthy investigate lifespan. An activity is said t be healthy if it causes an increase in lifespan, it is said to be unhealthy if it causes a decrease.
In this sense, eating fastfood and sitting on the couch all day is unhealthy, eating fastfood and sporting like a maniac and burning that fat is far less so.
If I was to make a scale of health where one end was 'nothing wrong with this person' and the other end was 'dead', there would be levels of health between those points but no way to measure that health with numbers. Just because there is a certain amount of subjectivity in determining how healthy someone is doesn't mean that the concept of health is wholey subjective and meaningless. There is no such thing as 'determining how healthy someone is.' how implies the existence of some number. There isn't in this case, you can determine how heavy smeone is or how tall, those thing are numbers. You cannot determine how 'healthy' someone is. You can however determine to sme extend the risk someone has of developing a heart attack within the next 5 years. That's a number. Just as you can determine the chance of Z winning in close positions antiga against T, that's a number as well.
The more we understand the human body, the more accurate calls we can make on how healthy someone is. The same goes for ethics, if we were to fully understand what made people 'happy' (for lack of a better word) on the level of the brain, we could say that *action* has a net decrease in *happiness/wellness* for those people involved and therefore would be an unethical thing to do. That's not subjective, Equating happiness to 'good' is such a naïve trap though, locking people up because they murdered other people as it stands doesn't make them happy. It also justifies the majority oppressing the minority. Let's say we just enslave all blakc people in the US, surely they are a minority, thereby we sacrifice their happiness for the happines sof the majority who don't have to work again, et voilla, we are an agent of 'good' now are we not? Slavery is good, abolishing slavery is evil?
Which still doesn't answer that different people have different goals with map. I get it, some of you people have the goal of making the game brain dead and removing any and all reactionary play so you can do your 'planned strategies', okay, I don't. That's my opinion versus yours.
|
On March 15 2013 01:19 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:07 OxyGenesis wrote:
Sisko, if you saw a obese person on the street would you say that they were unhealthy? Probably, Show nested quote +'Health' as a concept is just as subjective as the 'Quality' of a map. There are some things (numbers) which we can look at but they are only indicative of the whole picture. Knowing that someone is 14 stone tells us nothing about how healthy they are, you have to look at the individual person as a whole. Hardly, it is far less subjective, you can even come with a working definition of the concept via the concept of lifespan. Most clinical trials in investigation of healthy investigate lifespan. An activity is said t be healthy if it causes an increase in lifespan, it is said to be unhealthy if it causes a decrease. In this sense, eating fastfood and sitting on the couch all day is unhealthy, eating fastfood and sporting like a maniac and burning that fat is far less so. Show nested quote +If I was to make a scale of health where one end was 'nothing wrong with this person' and the other end was 'dead', there would be levels of health between those points but no way to measure that health with numbers. Just because there is a certain amount of subjectivity in determining how healthy someone is doesn't mean that the concept of health is wholey subjective and meaningless. There is no such thing as 'determining how healthy someone is.' how implies the existence of some number. There isn't in this case, you can determine how heavy smeone is or how tall, those thing are numbers. You cannot determine how 'healthy' someone is. You can however determine to sme extend the risk someone has of developing a heart attack within the next 5 years. That's a number. Just as you can determine the chance of Z winning in close positions antiga against T, that's a number as well. Show nested quote +The more we understand the human body, the more accurate calls we can make on how healthy someone is. The same goes for ethics, if we were to fully understand what made people 'happy' (for lack of a better word) on the level of the brain, we could say that *action* has a net decrease in *happiness/wellness* for those people involved and therefore would be an unethical thing to do. That's not subjective, Equating happiness to 'good' is such a naïve trap though, locking people up because they murdered other people as it stands doesn't make them happy. It also justifies the majority oppressing the minority. Let's say we just enslave all blakc people in the US, surely they are a minority, thereby we sacrifice their happiness for the happines sof the majority who don't have to work again, et voilla, we are an agent of 'good' now are we not? Slavery is good, abolishing slavery is evil? Which still doesn't answer that different people have different goals with map. I get it, some of you people have the goal of making the game brain dead and removing any and all reactionary play so you can do your 'planned strategies', okay, I don't. That's my opinion versus yours.
I used happiness because we don't actually have a word for 'how well someone is one the level of the brain', wellness is closer but still not quite right. The ethical thing to do would be the thing that maximises the wellness of all humans, slavery clearly doesn't do that, neither does pedophilia, rape, murder etc. That's not to say that I wouldn't lock up a murderer, separating someone who is a danger to the rest of society would in most cases be the ethical thing to do. Note that I'm not saying 'punishment' which I think is a somewhat flawed concept which many people seem to subscribe to.
Going back to health, just because there is no such thing as 'determining how healthy someone is.' doesn't mean there is no such thing as a healthy person or an unhealthy person. Just because there is no such thing as 'determining how good a map is' doesn't mean there is no such thing as a good or a bad map. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
