|
On March 15 2013 01:36 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:19 SiskosGoatee wrote: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. 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. So where do we draw the line? We aren't willing to enslave 30% to serve 70%. 1% to serve 99%? How about if we could take a cent from bill gates, steal it, and feed a thousand starving children with it? Clearly that doesn't maximize Bill Gates' happiness, we stole from him, is it unethetical, is it evil to do that?
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. That is one of the many reason why there isn't such a thing. For one, where do you draw the line? How unhealthy does someone have to be to consider it unhealthy? There's also a thing of context and environment. If you drop of an obese person on deserted island with no food but water in sight that obese people will of course survive longer than a skinny person like myself. Turns out that being obese is quite healthy when food is a scarcity.
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?
Yes, I just blatantly disagree. The point is, you presuppose the existence of a good map, that such a thing is even definable. Like I said before, there are in general multiple material issues.
A: Does a problem have a solution
B: Can the solution be analytically found.
For instance, the classic example of mathematics, the fifth order polynomial. Every fifth order polynomial has exactly 5 (complex) solutions. However these are provably not analytically findable generally. As in, they exist, you just can't find them.
Which is what you think si the case with maps.
I go even further. There is no such thing as a 'good map' because people are different have different opinions, like to see different games than one another. That is completely subjective. I personally am bored to death by passive macro games. That's my own subjective view, therefore in my opinion any map which facilities that such as Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, Ohana is a bad map and maps like Antiga Shipyard or Icarus or Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis which offer incentive to be aggressive and take forward positions are good maps in my opinion. Because they achieve what I like to see in this game. Aggression, drops, harass, bases constantly dying, action.
If you like to see epic battles, dramatic dialogue, great heros taking on the forces of evil in a fantasy setting, then LotR is probably a good film for you. I personally am completely not interested in that. I personally like to see people being put into ethical conflicts, have nothing with epic battles and dramatic dialogue and I especially don't like to see larger than life heroes. That's why for me, Primer was a really good film. It's all about what you want to see in films, or in this game.
Do you get the point I'm trying to make?
|
On March 15 2013 01:49 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:36 OxyGenesis wrote:On March 15 2013 01:19 SiskosGoatee wrote: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. 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. So where do we draw the line? We aren't willing to enslave 30% to serve 70%. 1% to serve 99%? How about if we could take a cent from bill gates, steal it, and feed a thousand starving children with it? Clearly that doesn't maximize Bill Gates' happiness, we stole from him, is it unethetical, is it evil to do that? Show nested quote +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. That is one of the many reason why there isn't such a thing. For one, where do you draw the line? How unhealthy does someone have to be to consider it unhealthy? There's also a thing of context and environment. If you drop of an obese person on deserted island with no food but water in sight that obese people will of course survive longer than a skinny person like myself. Turns out that being obese is quite healthy when food is a scarcity. Show nested quote +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?
Yes, I just blatantly disagree. The point is, you presuppose the existence of a good map, that such a thing is even definable. Like I said before, there are in general multiple material issues. A: Does a problem have a solution B: Can the solution be analytically found. For instance, the classic example of mathematics, the fifth order polynomial. Every fifth order polynomial has exactly 5 (complex) solutions. However these are provably not analytically findable generally. As in, they exist, you just can't find them. Which is what you think si the case with maps. I go even further. There is no such thing as a 'good map' because people are different have different opinions, like to see different games than one another. That is completely subjective. I personally am bored to death by passive macro games. That's my own subjective view, therefore in my opinion any map which facilities that such as Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, Ohana is a bad map and maps like Antiga Shipyard or Icarus or Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis which offer incentive to be aggressive and take forward positions are good maps in my opinion. Because they achieve what I like to see in this game. Aggression, drops, harass, bases constantly dying, action. If you like to see epic battles, dramatic dialogue, great heros taking on the forces of evil in a fantasy setting, then LotR is probably a good film for you. I personally am completely not interested in that. I personally like to see people being put into ethical conflicts, have nothing with epic battles and dramatic dialogue and I especially don't like to see larger than life heroes. That's why for me, Primer was a really good film. It's all about what you want to see in films, or in this game. Do you get the point I'm trying to make?
What you're talking about in maps is the concept. I'm saying based on any concept (a direction of gameplay) you can judge how well the map attains that concept. Like, does having a certain expo in location X actually help the concept? Of course people want to see different things in the game, but it doesn't mean a badly made map is ok in the eyes of some people.
Also Sisko, I don't think what you're doing is arguing. It seems like you're just adding in random topics and anecdotes to the conversation that are purely for the purpose of pissing us off by disagreeing with us. Honestly I can't figure out why you've even mentioned a lot of the things you have over the past 3 pages. They aren't related to what we're talking about, it seems like you just want to disagree and go against the grain. Also it serves your purpose of changing the subject to not actually have a meaningful discussion about maps.
|
On March 15 2013 02:02 monitor wrote:
What you're talking about in maps is the concept. I'm saying based on any concept (a direction of gameplay) you can judge how well the map attains that concept. Like, does having a certain expo in location X actually help the concept? Of course people want to see different things in the game, but it doesn't mean a badly made map is ok in the eyes of some people. Okay, so let's assume that, how does Antiga not fulfill its concept, how do you know what it's concept is, have you spoken to the person who made antiga?
Fact of the matter is that I enjoy playing and watching games on antiga more than daybreak or Ohana, therefore it is a better map in my own humble personal opinion, that's all.
Also Sisko, I don't think what you're doing is arguing. It seems like you're just adding in random topics and anecdotes to the conversation that are purely for the purpose of pissing us off by disagreeing with us. Honestly I can't figure out why you've even mentioned a lot of the things you have over the past 3 pages. They aren't related to what we're talking about, it seems like you just want to disagree and go against the grain. Also it serves your purpose of changing the subject to not actually have a meaningful discussion about maps. I think this is caused by the fact that I tend to not bring my opinion if someone else already brought it. I actually agree with the masses about a great many things, but if most people agree on it then it was probably already said so I don't repeat it. The reason I tend to appear as disagreeing a lot is because I only give my opinion if it hasn't been said before.
That said, everything I brought up is relevant to the point I'm making in some way.
|
On March 15 2013 01:49 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:36 OxyGenesis wrote:On March 15 2013 01:19 SiskosGoatee wrote: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. 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. So where do we draw the line? We aren't willing to enslave 30% to serve 70%. 1% to serve 99%? How about if we could take a cent from bill gates, steal it, and feed a thousand starving children with it? Clearly that doesn't maximize Bill Gates' happiness, we stole from him, is it unethetical, is it evil to do that? Show nested quote +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. That is one of the many reason why there isn't such a thing. For one, where do you draw the line? How unhealthy does someone have to be to consider it unhealthy? There's also a thing of context and environment. If you drop of an obese person on deserted island with no food but water in sight that obese people will of course survive longer than a skinny person like myself. Turns out that being obese is quite healthy when food is a scarcity. Show nested quote +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?
Yes, I just blatantly disagree. The point is, you presuppose the existence of a good map, that such a thing is even definable. Like I said before, there are in general multiple material issues. A: Does a problem have a solution B: Can the solution be analytically found. For instance, the classic example of mathematics, the fifth order polynomial. Every fifth order polynomial has exactly 5 (complex) solutions. However these are provably not analytically findable generally. As in, they exist, you just can't find them. Which is what you think si the case with maps. I go even further. There is no such thing as a 'good map' because people are different have different opinions, like to see different games than one another. That is completely subjective. I personally am bored to death by passive macro games. That's my own subjective view, therefore in my opinion any map which facilities that such as Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, Ohana is a bad map and maps like Antiga Shipyard or Icarus or Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis which offer incentive to be aggressive and take forward positions are good maps in my opinion. Because they achieve what I like to see in this game. Aggression, drops, harass, bases constantly dying, action. If you like to see epic battles, dramatic dialogue, great heros taking on the forces of evil in a fantasy setting, then LotR is probably a good film for you. I personally am completely not interested in that. I personally like to see people being put into ethical conflicts, have nothing with epic battles and dramatic dialogue and I especially don't like to see larger than life heroes. That's why for me, Primer was a really good film. It's all about what you want to see in films, or in this game. Do you get the point I'm trying to make?
Evidently you don't get the point im trying to make because you reply it by saying the same stuff about opinion that you've been saying for months which my argument is a direct counter to.
People have different opinions of health, some people see tanned skin as healthy to the point where they try and fake tanned skin. Yes, there is subjectiveness in health, but just because of that subjectiveness doesn't mean that health is a worthless concept. Practically every person that has ever existed has somewhat subscribed to the idea of health. To say that there is no such thing as a healthy person, just because people have different views on what is health is, is obviously absurd.
Your maths example falls flat because in health, as with maps, there is no 'perfect' example. A healthy person can have many many different forms just as a 2 maps can be very different but still be considered good. All you can do is judge each one on a case by case basis.
EDIT
So where do we draw the line? We aren't willing to enslave 30% to serve 70%. 1% to serve 99%? How about if we could take a cent from bill gates, steal it, and feed a thousand starving children with it? Clearly that doesn't maximize Bill Gates' happiness, we stole from him, is it unethetical, is it evil to do that?
This is exactly the point, if we understood 'wellness' on the level of the brain then we wouldn't need to draw the line because it would be drawn for us. You should really read/watch Sam Harris because this is exactly the sort of thing that he talks about, really all I'm doing is fudging his words.
|
On March 15 2013 02:14 OxyGenesis wrote:
Evidently you don't get the point im trying to make because you reply it by saying the same stuff about opinion that you've been saying for months which my argument is a direct counter to.
People have different opinions of health, some people see tanned skin as healthy to the point where they try and fake tanned skin. Yes, there is subjectiveness in health, but just because of that subjectiveness doesn't mean that health is a worthless concept. Practically every person that has ever existed has somewhat subscribed to the idea of health. To say that there is no such thing as a healthy person, just because people have different views on what is health is, is obviously absurd. Worthless or not has nothing to do with truth. Usefullness is completely orthogonal to veracity.
Your maths example falls flat because in health, as with maps, there is no 'perfect' example. A healthy person can have many many different forms just as a 2 maps can be very different but still be considered good. All you can do is judge each one on a case by case basis.
Okay, let me put it like this.
You think Antiga is bad objectively, I think it is not (subjectively).
Are you then saying that I am as wrong as someone who thinks that 2+2=5 and that I should be referred to a mental health specialist for being clearly delusional. Do you hold me as mad at someone who says 'Yeah but ehh, that 2+2=4 is just like ehh, your opinion man.'
In fact, potentially scratch all of the above, I think the problem lies in that we have different definitions of the concept of 'objective'. As in, I use the hard science definition. As in, total exhaustion. If something is only 1% subjective it is still subjective. Your definition of 'objective' seems to be markedly less stern. As in, things like 'health' or 'danger' or 'blue' which in terms of hard science are still considered subjective, you consider these objective?
I think the issue is that I view objective in the strictest possible conception and you do not.
|
On March 15 2013 02:25 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 02:14 OxyGenesis wrote:
Evidently you don't get the point im trying to make because you reply it by saying the same stuff about opinion that you've been saying for months which my argument is a direct counter to.
People have different opinions of health, some people see tanned skin as healthy to the point where they try and fake tanned skin. Yes, there is subjectiveness in health, but just because of that subjectiveness doesn't mean that health is a worthless concept. Practically every person that has ever existed has somewhat subscribed to the idea of health. To say that there is no such thing as a healthy person, just because people have different views on what is health is, is obviously absurd. Worthless or not has nothing to do with truth. Usefullness is completely orthogonal to veracity. Show nested quote +Your maths example falls flat because in health, as with maps, there is no 'perfect' example. A healthy person can have many many different forms just as a 2 maps can be very different but still be considered good. All you can do is judge each one on a case by case basis.
Okay, let me put it like this. You think Antiga is bad objectively, I think it is not (subjectively). Are you then saying that I am as wrong as someone who thinks that 2+2=5 and that I should be referred to a mental health specialist for being clearly delusional. Do you hold me as mad at someone who says 'Yeah but ehh, that 2+2=4 is just like ehh, your opinion man.' In fact, potentially scratch all of the above, I think the problem lies in that we have different definitions of the concept of 'objective'. As in, I use the hard science definition. As in, total exhaustion. If something is only 1% subjective it is still subjective. Your definition of 'objective' seems to be markedly less stern. As in, things like 'health' or 'danger' or 'blue' which in terms of hard science are still considered subjective, you consider these objective? I think the issue is that I view objective in the strictest possible conception and you do not.
Okay, as always when 'debating' you I find almost anything else I could be doing with my day would be more valuable so I will leave it there. The semantic argument of what is meant by objective/subjective is something we've discussed before and not something I find interesting.
|
Well, let's put it like this, you are objectively wrong if you think that what makes a map good or bad is an objective thing. If this question appeared on any exam at any school or university when they try to educate you in the difference between objectivty and subjectivity and you say that what makes a good StarCraft map or film or whatever is 'objective', a fact rather than an opinion you'd fail that test. I had that test in fact first year of secondary and one of the questions asked was indeed if it was objective or subjective whether films were good or bad.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 15 2013 03:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Well, let's put it like this, you are objectively wrong if you think that what makes a map good or bad is an objective thing. If this question appeared on any exam at any school or university when they try to educate you in the difference between objectivty and subjectivity and you say that what makes a good StarCraft map or film or whatever is 'objective', a fact rather than an opinion you'd fail that test. I had that test in fact first year of secondary and one of the questions asked was indeed if it was objective or subjective whether films were good or bad.
Pretty sure we've had this exact discussion before. Yet again you've boiled down what could have been an interesting discussion as to what a 'good map' means in to some silly blandandwhite allornothing sosimpleithurts reductioadabsurdum argument.
Would you say that how difficult a 3rd expansion is to secure is something that is objective or subjective? By your definition I guess it would be subjective because difficulty is like danger or health. To me it's not that important whether it's objective or subjective, it's important that we know it is directly related to it's distance from the natural and the size of the choke.
Just like it's not important whether the health (or colour or danger or quality) of something is objective, it's important that weight, heart rate and blood pressure are related to health. Once you've accepted that measurable objective things are indicative of subjective concepts it's just a case of mapping those patterns out.
If doctors had taken your stance of 'there's no such thing as an objectively healthy person' then medicine would be a lot worse off than it is now.
|
On March 15 2013 05:43 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 03:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Well, let's put it like this, you are objectively wrong if you think that what makes a map good or bad is an objective thing. If this question appeared on any exam at any school or university when they try to educate you in the difference between objectivty and subjectivity and you say that what makes a good StarCraft map or film or whatever is 'objective', a fact rather than an opinion you'd fail that test. I had that test in fact first year of secondary and one of the questions asked was indeed if it was objective or subjective whether films were good or bad. Would you say that how difficult a 3rd expansion is to secure is something that is objective or subjective? In theory objective, however the point is that this information cannot be compressed in a single dimension. There are multiple values to it like how hard it is to defend it from drops, from lingrunbies etc. You can't just compress all those values into one number.
By your definition I guess it would be subjective because difficulty is like danger or health. To me it's not that important whether it's objective or subjective, it's important that we know it is directly related to it's distance from the natural and the size of the choke. Well, apparently not by my definition.
Just like it's not important whether the health (or colour or danger or quality) of something is objective, it's important that weight, heart rate and blood pressure are related to health. Once you've accepted that measurable objective things are indicative of subjective concepts it's just a case of mapping those patterns out. Okay, so how does this relate to antiga being 'terrible' or not, how can we use this information to once and for all, (in theory) resolve the issue if antiga is terrible or not, which means that either I or Monitor are wrong. If the results yield Antiga isn't 'terrible', then I'm right, if it results into that antiga is terrible, than they are right.
If doctors had taken your stance of 'there's no such thing as an objectively healthy person' then medicine would be a lot worse off than it is now. Luckily they still don't and objectivity is also not required to treat people. It's why doctors call this stuff their opinion.
Hell, I don't believe there's objectivity to the ideal cup of herbal tea, but I managed to pour a fine one just yet. You don't actually need objectivity to get where you want you know.
|
On March 15 2013 02:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 02:02 monitor wrote:
What you're talking about in maps is the concept. I'm saying based on any concept (a direction of gameplay) you can judge how well the map attains that concept. Like, does having a certain expo in location X actually help the concept? Of course people want to see different things in the game, but it doesn't mean a badly made map is ok in the eyes of some people. Okay, so let's assume that, how does Antiga not fulfill its concept, how do you know what it's concept is, have you spoken to the person who made antiga? Fact of the matter is that I enjoy playing and watching games on antiga more than daybreak or Ohana, therefore it is a better map in my own humble personal opinion, that's all.
Map concepts are something I've been interested in since I started mapmaking. I think there's a lot to them, and many people don't really consider a concept when they make a map. I'll start with a loose definition of a map concept: An abstract idea of game-play direction for any given map.
So... essentially, if I ask what the concept is, I'm asking why you made the map. Did you want to encourage a certain play style? Did you merely go for balance? Were you addressing any issue in the metagame? Were you trying something that has never been done? Picking a concept is what lays the foundation for making changes to a map.
Some maps are difficult to tell why they were made. Others are obvious. I'm saying that the perfect, ideal map, is one that has a solid concept that the layout supports. I think I can best explain this idea using examples.
Example 1: Katrina
+ Show Spoiler +
At first Katrina may seem like a clever and innovative way to make a 4p rotational map. It is! But there is more to it. The concept is to encourage air play and discourage ground play. On those grounds, they have designed the map to specifically support that concept. First, the inbase expansion is completely protected from any ground attacks. That in itself discourages ground play. The expo is very far from the main, which makes air harass even better because bouncing between the main and nat hard for the defender. Additionally, the water gives a safe location for air to wait outside the opponent's base, thus discouraging any counter attacks. Next you notice that the middle ring of the map has many tight corridors and ramps, without much room for large-scale engagements except the very center. A large ground army has an incredibly difficult time getting around, compared to a map like Python. Air is also nice because the middle bases have their backs to cliff. And defending against air is difficult because the pathing is so restricted. The only safe bases against air have no gas, which makes them less useful than taking a central expansion because you need gas for air units.
Example 2: Othello
+ Show Spoiler +
Othello is super cool, not only in the positional balance, but in the expansion vulnerabilities. Its concept is to encourage drops (but not to discourage ground play). The natural has a cliff overlooking it which can only be accessed by tiny units (zealots, lings, marines, ghosts, etc.). Drops here are very powerful, but not too terrible, although they did arguably favor bw Terran in TvZ. The center expos can be dropped on the highground, and also sieged from the center. The corner bases can be dropped from the main and additionally sieged/dropped from the side area.
Example 3: Blue Storm
+ Show Spoiler +
Blue storm was detestably one of the best maps in BW history, at least from a design perspective. Not only did it have the unique tiny path through the middle that pioneered the 'long path vs short path' concept, but it also had a concept that encouraged counter-attacks and highground positioning. The tiny central path provides some opportunities for counter attacks and scouting. The mineral-only thirds placed on lowground are easily assaulted from highground, but also easily defended because the reinforce distances is quite a bit shorter from the opponent. The pathway behind it combined with the 1x ramp allows for harass and runbies, and also makes the fourth base closer (or third for zerg). Highground on each half of the map can be used aggressively or defensively, but doesn't cover all of the attack paths. Some of the side paths are actually shorter to harass the opponent than to use the risky highground- don't forget about the 47% miss chance. The deadend bases are the only part of the map that I don't quite agree with, except that they're so far out of the way and ambiguous that any more of an entrance would make it almost impossible to defend. Note: This map shared many conceptual highground control features with Match Point.
Example 4: Odd-Eye
+ Show Spoiler +
Odd-Eye is the simplest example I know of. All it went for was a creative take on reflection 2p maps (and unusual symmetry- though BW actually had much easier copy/paste tools because it just reflected the map diagonally). The concept was to have each player take the identical first three bases. Then, players split the map. One player takes the top right corner and the other takes the bottom half. The easier half to take only has a single gas expo and two mineral-onlies. The harder half has two mineral-onlies and a double gas expo, because it is farther. But it also has highground which can be used defensively. Cool stuff!
---
Now obviously not all maps can have as good concepts as these. But I like maps to have a purpose and thought put into the layout beyond just balance. Once a concept is constructed, then it can be balanced. I don't recognize a concept for Antiga except for trying to make rotational work with designated thirds, but that doesn't count for me. The middle gold bases are nothing but winner expansions. Making hard fourth bases could be a concept, but I don't see why it's a good idea for a map in terms of gameplay. I doubt the creator of Antiga would even fathom what I'm talking about. And having a 3x natural ramp is just a feature, not a concept.
And for the record, I don't enjoy Daybreak or Ohana either.
|
Blunderbuss is such an awesome map. I love your style, monitor!
I hope you stay with the scene for a little while longer!
|
On March 15 2013 08:03 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 02:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 15 2013 02:02 monitor wrote:
What you're talking about in maps is the concept. I'm saying based on any concept (a direction of gameplay) you can judge how well the map attains that concept. Like, does having a certain expo in location X actually help the concept? Of course people want to see different things in the game, but it doesn't mean a badly made map is ok in the eyes of some people. Okay, so let's assume that, how does Antiga not fulfill its concept, how do you know what it's concept is, have you spoken to the person who made antiga? Fact of the matter is that I enjoy playing and watching games on antiga more than daybreak or Ohana, therefore it is a better map in my own humble personal opinion, that's all. Map concepts are something I've been interested in since I started mapmaking. I think there's a lot to them, and many people don't really consider a concept when they make a map. I'll start with a loose definition of a map concept: An abstract idea of game-play direction for any given map. So... essentially, if I ask what the concept is, I'm asking why you made the map. Did you want to encourage a certain play style? Did you merely go for balance? Were you addressing any issue in the metagame? Were you trying something that has never been done? Picking a concept is what lays the foundation for making changes to a map. Some maps are difficult to tell why they were made. Others are obvious. I'm saying that the perfect, ideal map, is one that has a solid concept that the layout supports. I think I can best explain this idea using examples. Example 1: Katrina + Show Spoiler +At first Katrina may seem like a clever and innovative way to make a 4p rotational map. It is! But there is more to it. The concept is to encourage air play and discourage ground play. On those grounds, they have designed the map to specifically support that concept. First, the inbase expansion is completely protected from any ground attacks. That in itself discourages ground play. The expo is very far from the main, which makes air harass even better because bouncing between the main and nat hard for the defender. Additionally, the water gives a safe location for air to wait outside the opponent's base, thus discouraging any counter attacks. Next you notice that the middle ring of the map has many tight corridors and ramps, without much room for large-scale engagements except the very center. A large ground army has an incredibly difficult time getting around, compared to a map like Python. Air is also nice because the middle bases have their backs to cliff. And defending against air is difficult because the pathing is so restricted. The only safe bases against air have no gas, which makes them less useful than taking a central expansion because you need gas for air units. Example 2: Othello + Show Spoiler +Othello is super cool, not only in the positional balance, but in the expansion vulnerabilities. Its concept is to encourage drops (but not to discourage ground play). The natural has a cliff overlooking it which can only be accessed by tiny units (zealots, lings, marines, ghosts, etc.). Drops here are very powerful, but not too terrible, although they did arguably favor bw Terran in TvZ. The center expos can be dropped on the highground, and also sieged from the center. The corner bases can be dropped from the main and additionally sieged/dropped from the side area. Example 3: Blue Storm + Show Spoiler +Blue storm was detestably one of the best maps in BW history, at least from a design perspective. Not only did it have the unique tiny path through the middle that pioneered the 'long path vs short path' concept, but it also had a concept that encouraged counter-attacks and highground positioning. The tiny central path provides some opportunities for counter attacks and scouting. The mineral-only thirds placed on lowground are easily assaulted from highground, but also easily defended because the reinforce distances is quite a bit shorter from the opponent. The pathway behind it combined with the 1x ramp allows for harass and runbies, and also makes the fourth base closer (or third for zerg). Highground on each half of the map can be used aggressively or defensively, but doesn't cover all of the attack paths. Some of the side paths are actually shorter to harass the opponent than to use the risky highground- don't forget about the 47% miss chance. The deadend bases are the only part of the map that I don't quite agree with, except that they're so far out of the way and ambiguous that any more of an entrance would make it almost impossible to defend. Note: This map shared many conceptual highground control features with Match Point. Example 4: Odd-Eye + Show Spoiler +Odd-Eye is the simplest example I know of. All it went for was a creative take on reflection 2p maps (and unusual symmetry- though BW actually had much easier copy/paste tools because it just reflected the map diagonally). The concept was to have each player take the identical first three bases. Then, players split the map. One player takes the top right corner and the other takes the bottom half. The easier half to take only has a single gas expo and two mineral-onlies. The harder half has two mineral-onlies and a double gas expo, because it is farther. But it also has highground which can be used defensively. Cool stuff! --- Now obviously not all maps can have as good concepts as these. But I like maps to have a purpose and thought put into the layout beyond just balance. Once a concept is constructed, then it can be balanced. I don't recognize a concept for Antiga except for trying to make rotational work with designated thirds, but that doesn't count for me. The middle gold bases are nothing but winner expansions. Making hard fourth bases could be a concept, but I don't see why it's a good idea for a map in terms of gameplay. I doubt the creator of Antiga would even fathom what I'm talking about. And having a 3x natural ramp is just a feature, not a concept. I disagree, I see a pretty clear intend with Antiga, it's even summarized in the official Blizzard description:
Taking the correct 2nd expansion is the main difference on this map. Choose between the safer, high ground normal expansion or the more dangerous but more rewarding high yield expansion
Antiga is obviously designed as a map where control of the centre is important, but you can still walk around it on the outskirts and it does that pretty well in my opinion. To say the centre golds are 'winner bases' is pretty much demonstratively false, there have been many recorded games where people had them and still lost. I've had many games where my opponent had them and still lost and I had one of them myself many times and still lost.
And for the record, I don't enjoy Daybreak or Ohana either. Okay, so are you willing to go to the length of saying that the people who voted for it in the TL map contest were basically objectively 'wrong'?
|
Just popping in to say that dumping the word "objectively" into the mouths of others on a recurrent basis is in fact intellectually dishonest, and also just annoying.
|
On March 15 2013 09:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 08:03 monitor wrote:On March 15 2013 02:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 15 2013 02:02 monitor wrote:
What you're talking about in maps is the concept. I'm saying based on any concept (a direction of gameplay) you can judge how well the map attains that concept. Like, does having a certain expo in location X actually help the concept? Of course people want to see different things in the game, but it doesn't mean a badly made map is ok in the eyes of some people. Okay, so let's assume that, how does Antiga not fulfill its concept, how do you know what it's concept is, have you spoken to the person who made antiga? Fact of the matter is that I enjoy playing and watching games on antiga more than daybreak or Ohana, therefore it is a better map in my own humble personal opinion, that's all. Map concepts are something I've been interested in since I started mapmaking. I think there's a lot to them, and many people don't really consider a concept when they make a map. I'll start with a loose definition of a map concept: An abstract idea of game-play direction for any given map. So... essentially, if I ask what the concept is, I'm asking why you made the map. Did you want to encourage a certain play style? Did you merely go for balance? Were you addressing any issue in the metagame? Were you trying something that has never been done? Picking a concept is what lays the foundation for making changes to a map. Some maps are difficult to tell why they were made. Others are obvious. I'm saying that the perfect, ideal map, is one that has a solid concept that the layout supports. I think I can best explain this idea using examples. Example 1: Katrina + Show Spoiler +At first Katrina may seem like a clever and innovative way to make a 4p rotational map. It is! But there is more to it. The concept is to encourage air play and discourage ground play. On those grounds, they have designed the map to specifically support that concept. First, the inbase expansion is completely protected from any ground attacks. That in itself discourages ground play. The expo is very far from the main, which makes air harass even better because bouncing between the main and nat hard for the defender. Additionally, the water gives a safe location for air to wait outside the opponent's base, thus discouraging any counter attacks. Next you notice that the middle ring of the map has many tight corridors and ramps, without much room for large-scale engagements except the very center. A large ground army has an incredibly difficult time getting around, compared to a map like Python. Air is also nice because the middle bases have their backs to cliff. And defending against air is difficult because the pathing is so restricted. The only safe bases against air have no gas, which makes them less useful than taking a central expansion because you need gas for air units. Example 2: Othello + Show Spoiler +Othello is super cool, not only in the positional balance, but in the expansion vulnerabilities. Its concept is to encourage drops (but not to discourage ground play). The natural has a cliff overlooking it which can only be accessed by tiny units (zealots, lings, marines, ghosts, etc.). Drops here are very powerful, but not too terrible, although they did arguably favor bw Terran in TvZ. The center expos can be dropped on the highground, and also sieged from the center. The corner bases can be dropped from the main and additionally sieged/dropped from the side area. Example 3: Blue Storm + Show Spoiler +Blue storm was detestably one of the best maps in BW history, at least from a design perspective. Not only did it have the unique tiny path through the middle that pioneered the 'long path vs short path' concept, but it also had a concept that encouraged counter-attacks and highground positioning. The tiny central path provides some opportunities for counter attacks and scouting. The mineral-only thirds placed on lowground are easily assaulted from highground, but also easily defended because the reinforce distances is quite a bit shorter from the opponent. The pathway behind it combined with the 1x ramp allows for harass and runbies, and also makes the fourth base closer (or third for zerg). Highground on each half of the map can be used aggressively or defensively, but doesn't cover all of the attack paths. Some of the side paths are actually shorter to harass the opponent than to use the risky highground- don't forget about the 47% miss chance. The deadend bases are the only part of the map that I don't quite agree with, except that they're so far out of the way and ambiguous that any more of an entrance would make it almost impossible to defend. Note: This map shared many conceptual highground control features with Match Point. Example 4: Odd-Eye + Show Spoiler +Odd-Eye is the simplest example I know of. All it went for was a creative take on reflection 2p maps (and unusual symmetry- though BW actually had much easier copy/paste tools because it just reflected the map diagonally). The concept was to have each player take the identical first three bases. Then, players split the map. One player takes the top right corner and the other takes the bottom half. The easier half to take only has a single gas expo and two mineral-onlies. The harder half has two mineral-onlies and a double gas expo, because it is farther. But it also has highground which can be used defensively. Cool stuff! --- Now obviously not all maps can have as good concepts as these. But I like maps to have a purpose and thought put into the layout beyond just balance. Once a concept is constructed, then it can be balanced. I don't recognize a concept for Antiga except for trying to make rotational work with designated thirds, but that doesn't count for me. The middle gold bases are nothing but winner expansions. Making hard fourth bases could be a concept, but I don't see why it's a good idea for a map in terms of gameplay. I doubt the creator of Antiga would even fathom what I'm talking about. And having a 3x natural ramp is just a feature, not a concept. I disagree, I see a pretty clear intend with Antiga, it's even summarized in the official Blizzard description: Taking the correct 2nd expansion is the main difference on this map. Choose between the safer, high ground normal expansion or the more dangerous but more rewarding high yield expansionAntiga is obviously designed as a map where control of the centre is important, but you can still walk around it on the outskirts and it does that pretty well in my opinion. To say the centre golds are 'winner bases' is pretty much demonstratively false, there have been many recorded games where people had them and still lost. I've had many games where my opponent had them and still lost and I had one of them myself many times and still lost. Okay, so are you willing to go to the length of saying that the people who voted for it in the TL map contest were basically objectively 'wrong'?
Lol, I suppose that could be a concept, but it is a shitty one and Antiga doesn't do a good job of it. First I would ask, why have that concept? High risk/high reward can be a nice way to add variety, but ultimately it doesn't seem to work. This game is so calculated that one option usually ends up being better than the other. Aside from that fact, gold bases don't work that way. Obviously they favor Terran quite a bit because T's army is composed of mostly minerals, especially late-game. A gold base for zerg isn't that effective because their units are gas heavy, except lings, which aren't as useful in large numbers because of splash, concussive shell, repair, etc. I don't think there is that much of a choice for any race realistically, especially when considering that gold bases favor Terran. Given, the map was released a long time ago and the meta has changed.
The middle gold base is basically a good way to win or lose the game for Terran. If it is held, Terran wins. If not, they lose (when player skill is even). I don't like this dynamic because I feel like SC2 should always have the better player win. A good map allows for comebacks- if a player falls behind, there's a chance for him to come back if he outplays his opponent. If Terran can contain Zerg on those three bases, he wins. The gold just makes it easier; it doesn't actually help the better player. So not only does the concept that Blizzard gave for Antiga not truly exist in the map, but it's also just a bad concept to begin with. I, personally, have watched many games from the GSL to investigate this issue. I've seen that most of the time, Zerg can't get a fourth against a good Terran. Protoss also has a very hard time getting a fourth. The middle can be completely zone controlled by taking the gold with tanks and/or mech. The "side paths" aren't really side paths because there's just enough room to squeeze some lings by or try to get a surround. For example, it isn't anything like the middle of (4) Crux Baskerville, which has many side routes for counter attacks and navigating around an army. A better risk vs. reward map is Dual Sight, where the gold actually made sense. The problem is that golds end up favoring Terran, and Dual Sight's third was way too hard for Protoss to hold and the natural went against the forge FE metagame.
[edit]
Daybreak was never in the TLMC. I don't think it was a good choice for GSL either; there were better maps that they could have chosen at the time. Albeit the map quality then was generally lower than today.
Ohana was quite different when the TLMC picked it. ESV made massive changes before it was put into ladder. No, I didn't like it and I don't think it was a good choice for ladder. The middle was super small and so were the distances, which made the gameplay boring. The small middle also made a fifth base nearly impossible. It is playable, but nothing special like some of the maps that we're starting to see today.
|
On March 15 2013 09:43 NewSunshine wrote:
Just popping in to say that dumping the word "objectively" into the mouths of others on a recurrent basis is in fact intellectually dishonest, and also just annoying. The entire discussion is about objectively vs subjectively, it's a pretty material world here.
On March 15 2013 09:54 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 09:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 15 2013 08:03 monitor wrote:On March 15 2013 02:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 15 2013 02:02 monitor wrote:
What you're talking about in maps is the concept. I'm saying based on any concept (a direction of gameplay) you can judge how well the map attains that concept. Like, does having a certain expo in location X actually help the concept? Of course people want to see different things in the game, but it doesn't mean a badly made map is ok in the eyes of some people. Okay, so let's assume that, how does Antiga not fulfill its concept, how do you know what it's concept is, have you spoken to the person who made antiga? Fact of the matter is that I enjoy playing and watching games on antiga more than daybreak or Ohana, therefore it is a better map in my own humble personal opinion, that's all. Map concepts are something I've been interested in since I started mapmaking. I think there's a lot to them, and many people don't really consider a concept when they make a map. I'll start with a loose definition of a map concept: An abstract idea of game-play direction for any given map. So... essentially, if I ask what the concept is, I'm asking why you made the map. Did you want to encourage a certain play style? Did you merely go for balance? Were you addressing any issue in the metagame? Were you trying something that has never been done? Picking a concept is what lays the foundation for making changes to a map. Some maps are difficult to tell why they were made. Others are obvious. I'm saying that the perfect, ideal map, is one that has a solid concept that the layout supports. I think I can best explain this idea using examples. Example 1: Katrina + Show Spoiler +At first Katrina may seem like a clever and innovative way to make a 4p rotational map. It is! But there is more to it. The concept is to encourage air play and discourage ground play. On those grounds, they have designed the map to specifically support that concept. First, the inbase expansion is completely protected from any ground attacks. That in itself discourages ground play. The expo is very far from the main, which makes air harass even better because bouncing between the main and nat hard for the defender. Additionally, the water gives a safe location for air to wait outside the opponent's base, thus discouraging any counter attacks. Next you notice that the middle ring of the map has many tight corridors and ramps, without much room for large-scale engagements except the very center. A large ground army has an incredibly difficult time getting around, compared to a map like Python. Air is also nice because the middle bases have their backs to cliff. And defending against air is difficult because the pathing is so restricted. The only safe bases against air have no gas, which makes them less useful than taking a central expansion because you need gas for air units. Example 2: Othello + Show Spoiler +Othello is super cool, not only in the positional balance, but in the expansion vulnerabilities. Its concept is to encourage drops (but not to discourage ground play). The natural has a cliff overlooking it which can only be accessed by tiny units (zealots, lings, marines, ghosts, etc.). Drops here are very powerful, but not too terrible, although they did arguably favor bw Terran in TvZ. The center expos can be dropped on the highground, and also sieged from the center. The corner bases can be dropped from the main and additionally sieged/dropped from the side area. Example 3: Blue Storm + Show Spoiler +Blue storm was detestably one of the best maps in BW history, at least from a design perspective. Not only did it have the unique tiny path through the middle that pioneered the 'long path vs short path' concept, but it also had a concept that encouraged counter-attacks and highground positioning. The tiny central path provides some opportunities for counter attacks and scouting. The mineral-only thirds placed on lowground are easily assaulted from highground, but also easily defended because the reinforce distances is quite a bit shorter from the opponent. The pathway behind it combined with the 1x ramp allows for harass and runbies, and also makes the fourth base closer (or third for zerg). Highground on each half of the map can be used aggressively or defensively, but doesn't cover all of the attack paths. Some of the side paths are actually shorter to harass the opponent than to use the risky highground- don't forget about the 47% miss chance. The deadend bases are the only part of the map that I don't quite agree with, except that they're so far out of the way and ambiguous that any more of an entrance would make it almost impossible to defend. Note: This map shared many conceptual highground control features with Match Point. Example 4: Odd-Eye + Show Spoiler +Odd-Eye is the simplest example I know of. All it went for was a creative take on reflection 2p maps (and unusual symmetry- though BW actually had much easier copy/paste tools because it just reflected the map diagonally). The concept was to have each player take the identical first three bases. Then, players split the map. One player takes the top right corner and the other takes the bottom half. The easier half to take only has a single gas expo and two mineral-onlies. The harder half has two mineral-onlies and a double gas expo, because it is farther. But it also has highground which can be used defensively. Cool stuff! --- Now obviously not all maps can have as good concepts as these. But I like maps to have a purpose and thought put into the layout beyond just balance. Once a concept is constructed, then it can be balanced. I don't recognize a concept for Antiga except for trying to make rotational work with designated thirds, but that doesn't count for me. The middle gold bases are nothing but winner expansions. Making hard fourth bases could be a concept, but I don't see why it's a good idea for a map in terms of gameplay. I doubt the creator of Antiga would even fathom what I'm talking about. And having a 3x natural ramp is just a feature, not a concept. I disagree, I see a pretty clear intend with Antiga, it's even summarized in the official Blizzard description: Taking the correct 2nd expansion is the main difference on this map. Choose between the safer, high ground normal expansion or the more dangerous but more rewarding high yield expansionAntiga is obviously designed as a map where control of the centre is important, but you can still walk around it on the outskirts and it does that pretty well in my opinion. To say the centre golds are 'winner bases' is pretty much demonstratively false, there have been many recorded games where people had them and still lost. I've had many games where my opponent had them and still lost and I had one of them myself many times and still lost. And for the record, I don't enjoy Daybreak or Ohana either. Okay, so are you willing to go to the length of saying that the people who voted for it in the TL map contest were basically objectively 'wrong'? Lol, I suppose that could be a concept, but it is a shitty one and Antiga doesn't do a good job of it. First I would ask, why have that concept? High risk/high reward can be a nice way to add variety, but ultimately it doesn't seem to work. It works fine for me, Antiga has given us some of the most nail biting and celebrated series in the game that everyone fondly remembers
This game is so calculated that one option usually ends up being better than the other. Nonsense, whether I take the gold or the normal third on antiga depends on a lot of factors and the position I'm at in the game. The races I'm playing etc.
Aside from that fact, gold bases don't work that way. Obviously they favor Terran quite a bit because T's army is composed of mostly minerals, especially late-game. A gold base for zerg isn't that effective because their units are gas heavy, except lings, which aren't as useful in large numbers because of splash, concussive shell, repair, etc. I don't think there is that much of a choice for any race realistically, especially when considering that gold bases favor Terran. Given, the map was released a long time ago and the meta has changed. Not true at all. There's a famous build called the snute bust in ZvP which needs a gold to work. I've often taken the gold in ZvT as well and stayed on a low drone count for a while and used it for mass ling. In PvT the gold is also a favourite of mine because I like zealots and I've also often taken it deliberately in PvZ for zealot heavy 3base timings.
The middle gold base is basically a good way to win or lose the game for Terran. If it is held, Terran wins. If not, they lose This directly contradicts it being a winners base. So what is it?
(when player skill is even). I don't like this dynamic because I feel like SC2 should always have the better player win. A good map allows for comebacks- if a player falls behind, there's a chance for him to come back if he outplays his opponent. If Terran can contain Zerg on those three bases, he wins. You mean to say that Terran tends to win with 3-4 bases aginst a 3base Zerg? I am shocked at this revelation! Clearly there is something wrong with this map that it works like that here.
The gold just makes it easier; it doesn't actually help the better player. So not only does the concept that Blizzard gave for Antiga not truly exist in the map, but it's also just a bad concept to begin with. I, personally, have watched many games from the GSL to investigate this issue. I've seen that most of the time, Zerg can't get a fourth against a good Terran. Protoss also has a very hard time getting a fourth. The middle can be completely zone controlled by taking the gold with tanks and/or mech. The "side paths" aren't really side paths because there's just enough room to squeeze some lings by or try to get a surround. For example, it isn't anything like the middle of (4) Crux Baskerville, which has many side routes for counter attacks and navigating around an army. A better risk vs. reward map is Dual Sight, where the gold actually made sense. The problem is that golds end up favoring Terran, and Dual Sight's third was way too hard for Protoss to hold and the natural went against the forge FE metagame.
How do you explain with all this that antiga shipyard is one of the most balanced maps in competitive existence (as Blizzard maps tend to be nowadays, mind you, they actually know what they are doing). Your story implies that it is Terran favoured, it is not.
Daybreak was never in the TLMC. I don't think it was a good choice for GSL either; there were better maps that they could have chosen at the time. Albeit the map quality then was generally lower than today.
Ohana was quite different when the TLMC picked it. ESV made massive changes before it was put into ladder. No, I didn't like it and I don't think it was a good choice for ladder. The middle was super small and so were the distances, which made the gameplay boring. The small middle also made a fifth base nearly impossible. It is playable, but nothing special like some of the maps that we're starting to see today.
I like neither daybreak nor Ohana, but that is not what I asked, I asked if you think the people that did like it were objectively wrong or didn't understand something you did?
|
On March 15 2013 01:04 EatThePath wrote:
@caustic: You are an accomplished linguist.
Why thank you, good sir.
+ Show Spoiler +
@monitor: What are your thoughts on Koprulu's 3/6/9/12 mineral lines and the ability for Protoss to easily warp-in over them (a concept that didn't exist in BW, where this mineral design originated)?
Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my point as "argumenta ad populum" (it's actually argumentum, but I digress), simply because I refuse to waste my time doing the legwork for someone who's deliberately antagonistic for the sake of passing the time (see: Siskos' complete derailing of the thread by discussing nature and morality, nature and morality in a map thread, for God sakes). I actually value my time and use it for more productive purposes. On the note of breaking down my argument as logical fallacy, he'd do better to call it argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal from authority, as the crux of my point is that pro tournaments and Blizzard made the deciding call.
The fact that I do a better job at criticizing my own argument than Siskos does should be a wake up call to anyone who actually takes him seriously.
|
On March 15 2013 10:33 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:04 EatThePath wrote:
@caustic: You are an accomplished linguist. Why thank you, good sir. + Show Spoiler +@monitor: What are your thoughts on Koprulu's 3/6/9/12 mineral lines and the ability for Protoss to easily warp-in over them (a concept that didn't exist in BW, where this mineral design originated)? Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my point as "argumenta ad populum" (it's actually argumentum, but I digress) Argumenta is the plural form of argumentum Mr linguist. Look at the sentence again and see 'argumentum' used first as singular and 'argumenta' as plural later.
simply because I refuse to waste my time doing the legwork for someone who's deliberately antagonistic for the sake of passing the time (see: Siskos' complete derailing of the thread by discussing nature and morality, nature and morality in a map thread, for God sakes). I actually value my time and use it for more productive purposes. On the note of breaking down my argument as logical fallacy, he'd do better to call it argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal from authority, as the crux of my point is that pro tournaments and Blizzard made the deciding call.
The fact that I do a better job at criticizing my own argument than Siskos does should be a wake up call to anyone who actually takes him seriously. Yeh, or you could just admit that you still havne't given me the numbers I asked for 4 pages back because ehh well, you don't have them because you just base your case on argumenta ad populum.
|
I keep promising myself that I'm going to stop arguing, so here's to my last post!
Not true at all. There's a famous build called the snute bust in ZvP which needs a gold to work. I've often taken the gold in ZvT as well and stayed on a low drone count for a while and used it for mass ling. In PvT the gold is also a favourite of mine because I like zealots and I've also often taken it deliberately in PvZ for zealot heavy 3base timings.
I don't really care what builds you do. And I don't think the snute build was ever widely popular. Even if it was (and I somehow never saw it despite watching almost every large tournament), it's only one build. That doesn't constitute the concept of the map being okay, considering we haven't even talked about Protoss.
This directly contradicts it being a winners base. So what is it?
I don't think it does. I guess I worded it badly, but I'm saying that if you can control that area, you've won. Having a gold base there makes easier, but doesn't reward the better player. It makes it more difficult for the other player (it would be balanced in mirrors, but not TvZ).
You mean to say that Terran tends to win with 3-4 bases aginst a 3base Zerg? I am shocked at this revelation! Clearly there is something wrong with this map that it works like that here.
I mean to say that, Zerg doesn't have a chance to take a fourth base on Antiga because of the layout. Not true with good maps, imo.
And if all this is true, then why isn't Antiga Shipyard terran favoured?
How do you explain with all this that antiga shipyard is one of the most balanced maps in competitive existence (as Blizzard maps tend to be nowadays, mind you, they actually know what they are doing). Your story implies that it is Terran favoured, it is not.
Because statistics aren't everything, and there are other factors that go into the balance. Holding the middle base is basically impossible as a third base against a good Zerg. It may not be imbalanced, it's just shitty gameplay because getting a sustainable fourth+ base economy is super hard. Take a look at balance based on game length if you want to, but idk how to find those statistics.
I like neither daybreak nor Ohana, but that is not what I asked, I asked if you think the people that did like it were objectively wrong or didn't understand something you did?
I'd say they didn't know something that I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/162_Katrina.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/178_Othello.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/159_Blue%20Storm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/thumb/f/fe/262_Odd-Eye.jpg/500px-262_Odd-Eye.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.veggieboards.com/7/74/300x220px-LL-7471e0bf_Like-a-Sir-300x220.jpeg)
