|
On March 16 2013 03:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 02:58 Qwyn wrote:
Design is objective. There are objective features of design that exist due to a directive...
You cannot claim that a map's features, which exist and will not shift (except change for a future reason) are not objective once the map is released. Sure the interpretation of why things might be that way is subjective in nature, but that does not change that they are and the influence they have on gameplay. If an overwhelming body of evidence suggests certain design elements cause a fluctuation or reaction by either race/player that leads to a stagnant gameflow (not balance)...this is a trend that can be objectively observed. Of course map features are objective, if those features are 'good' or 'bad' are subjective. The very terms 'good' and 'bad' imply subjectivity. To begin with, they are oughts, not isses. Show nested quote +Ultimately, you are trying to justify that Antiga is a good map based off of hard statistics. You CANNOT interpret these statistics. You don't have the time to. No, ultimately I'm saying the mapping scene is filled with parroting and repeating of myths and no one takes the time to actually check and find out if they are true. Show nested quote +That does not change my subjective opinion that a majority of people hate Antiga (from what I have observed). This is again objective, either 50% or more of people dislike antiga or they do not. In this case I'm pretty sure they do, it's not a popular map, so yeah, it's an objective fact that the majority of people dislike antiga. To say this shows that antiga is bad is an argumt[b]um[/b[ ad populum. Show nested quote +At the end of the day, you can look at the design of all Blizzard maps. You can find objective flaws. Flaws that clash with the current directive. Flaws that clash with what mapmakers have learned. And in at the end of the day. Blizzard maps alway turn out to be ridiculously balanced so they clearly know what they are doing on some level. You can find flaws with any map. As I outlined before, half of the maps people post here don't allow overlords to check the natural drone saturation, this is essential to stop ZvZ from devolving into a coin flip. But no one gives a damn about it apparently. Show nested quote +Antiga was a pretty good map. The majority of Blizzard maps are absolute shit. This one may just be the "diamond in the rough." If you liked it, great! A lot of people do not like it now because it represents something they want to move away from. I don't like the majority of maps, while I'm not a super big fan of Antiga the way I still am of XNC. It's an okay map. Better in my opinion than say Metropolis or Ohana. Dual Site is still my favourite map, it's just horribly imbalanced. Show nested quote +But for heaven's sake get that pitchfork out of your ass, bro. Do you really think you can change other people's opinions by banging down the castle door? If you liked Antiga, great! It's a pretty good map. I'm not trying to change people's opinion, maybe you should read bro. Like I said a thousand times before. If people like or dislike Antiga, their opinion. But to say that if a map is good or bad is 'objective' is retarded. That's ultimately a subjective assessment.
Yes, they are based upon belief and small tests.
Good luck getting toplevel proplayers for a map on which common strategies aren't possible to test whether those theories hold or don't hold. But for what it's worth, I (and most others) believe in people like Barrin, NewSunshine, Superouman or monitor who have much more experience and have been around much longer when they talk about subjectively "good" or "bad" mapfeatures.
Yeah, once you have profiled yourself as toplevel mapmaker or tournament organizer you might be able to produce a map that has slightly different features and get that into a tournament (e.g. Icarus). Up to then, you will have to stick to more standard approaches and try to create interesting gameplay based upon the established rules.
|
On March 16 2013 03:37 iamcaustic wrote:You're trying really hard to salvage yourself, Siskos. It's argumentum because there's one argument made. Keep bending over backwards in vain about it, though. My sentence doesn't make sense grammatically because it doesn't make sense to use plural form for a singular instance, which is the whole point I'm making of your continued derailment of the thread. There's a reason "argumenta ad populum" was in quotes, instead of italics as I've used since then. Show nested quote +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) Behold. Bold added for emphasis of the important parts. This is, again, grade school stuff. Nice of you to deliberately remove the italics from the sentence when you quoted it, though, despite that anyone can go back and read the original comment. Complete bullshit, let's just replace it with 'appeal to popularity'
"Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my point as "appeals to popularity" (it's actually appeal, but I digress)"
You miss the article 'an'. The sentence doesn't flow at all and does a particularly bad job at explaining the issue was that it was only a single appeal. No one would read the above sentence to mean 'I only made one appeal, not multiple ones.' You didn't know argumenta was plural, decide to make a wisecrack about it and it hit back at you.
One last thing, before you quote my "outcries of the community" statement as justification for your misuse of argumentum ad populum: we've actually been over this one before with ramp block imbalance.
Ramp blocks are still not imbalanced, that's the biggest nonsense ever. It's so easy to stop them if you know they are coming, put a drone there and you're done. It's harder to stop a PvP cannon rush on metalopolis or antiga than stop a ramp block from going up. Same principle applies, you have to put a worker at the correct location before the wall goes up. If he can lock in a cannon in range of your mineral line on metalopolis or antiga you can't kill it with probes and you basically lost already or at the very least you're going to have a very tough time. You have to stop the lock from happening by blocking with workers.
+ Show Spoiler +On August 15 2012 16:16 iamcaustic wrote:
Reading this, what you label "the community" and what I label "the community" are clearly very different things, so allow me to clarify what I'm talking about.
When I say "the community", I am talking about the people that actually, you know, do stuff. They're map-makers, journalists, tournament organizers both large and small, barcraft organizers, pro and semi-pro players, etc. I am not talking about r/starcraft or even the TL forums -- though I do include everyone who helps run them. People who only play the game casually and/or watch pro games I call amateurs and spectators, respectively. Out of those, the ones that post the garbage you speak of are called the hivemind (as seems to be the popular term on r/starcraft). I watch hockey, being a Canadian. That doesn't make me a part of any hockey community.
To sum that up, my use of "the community" means people that are actually relevant to the StarCraft scene, even if only in small ways. Perhaps that's more technical and unorthodox than common, so I'll drop my earlier comments on the matter.
I do, however, still take issues with your coupling my concept of the community with the hivemind, assuming they think and act the same way and therefore consider ramp block to be nothing more than another freak out. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=358984¤tpage=8#150We're now at the point of the cyclic shitfest that begins when you're wrong and start conveniently ignoring or rewriting previous comments to keep being antagonistic for the hell of it, so I won't be responding again. There's more than enough here for others to make their own judgements, and responding to me isn't going to help your case at this point. Have a good day now, ya hear? Great, you took an appeal to popularity and extended it to being both an appeal to popularity as much as authority.
The mapmaking community in particular are a bunch of people who constantly parrot each other and do almost zero statistical inquiry. And almost none of those people even play Zerg. How many mappers actually play Zerg? How would they know it's imbalanced? You're shitting me if you honestly believe that you cannot stop a ramp block from going up. Your only excuse is not knowing it is happening.
On March 16 2013 03:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 03:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 16 2013 02:58 Qwyn wrote:
Design is objective. There are objective features of design that exist due to a directive...
You cannot claim that a map's features, which exist and will not shift (except change for a future reason) are not objective once the map is released. Sure the interpretation of why things might be that way is subjective in nature, but that does not change that they are and the influence they have on gameplay. If an overwhelming body of evidence suggests certain design elements cause a fluctuation or reaction by either race/player that leads to a stagnant gameflow (not balance)...this is a trend that can be objectively observed. Of course map features are objective, if those features are 'good' or 'bad' are subjective. The very terms 'good' and 'bad' imply subjectivity. To begin with, they are oughts, not isses. Ultimately, you are trying to justify that Antiga is a good map based off of hard statistics. You CANNOT interpret these statistics. You don't have the time to. No, ultimately I'm saying the mapping scene is filled with parroting and repeating of myths and no one takes the time to actually check and find out if they are true. That does not change my subjective opinion that a majority of people hate Antiga (from what I have observed). This is again objective, either 50% or more of people dislike antiga or they do not. In this case I'm pretty sure they do, it's not a popular map, so yeah, it's an objective fact that the majority of people dislike antiga. To say this shows that antiga is bad is an argumt[b]um[/b[ ad populum. At the end of the day, you can look at the design of all Blizzard maps. You can find objective flaws. Flaws that clash with the current directive. Flaws that clash with what mapmakers have learned. And in at the end of the day. Blizzard maps alway turn out to be ridiculously balanced so they clearly know what they are doing on some level. You can find flaws with any map. As I outlined before, half of the maps people post here don't allow overlords to check the natural drone saturation, this is essential to stop ZvZ from devolving into a coin flip. But no one gives a damn about it apparently. Antiga was a pretty good map. The majority of Blizzard maps are absolute shit. This one may just be the "diamond in the rough." If you liked it, great! A lot of people do not like it now because it represents something they want to move away from. I don't like the majority of maps, while I'm not a super big fan of Antiga the way I still am of XNC. It's an okay map. Better in my opinion than say Metropolis or Ohana. Dual Site is still my favourite map, it's just horribly imbalanced. But for heaven's sake get that pitchfork out of your ass, bro. Do you really think you can change other people's opinions by banging down the castle door? If you liked Antiga, great! It's a pretty good map. I'm not trying to change people's opinion, maybe you should read bro. Like I said a thousand times before. If people like or dislike Antiga, their opinion. But to say that if a map is good or bad is 'objective' is retarded. That's ultimately a subjective assessment. Yes, they are based upon belief and small tests. Good luck getting toplevel proplayers for a map on which common strategies aren't possible to test whether those theories hold or don't hold. But for what it's worth, I (and most others) believe in people like Barrin, NewSunshine, Superouman or monitor who have much more experience and have been around much longer when they talk about subjectively "good" or "bad" mapfeatures. Yeah, once you have profiled yourself as toplevel mapmaker or tournament organizer you might be able to produce a map that has slightly different features and get that into a tournament (e.g. Icarus). Up to then, you will have to stick to more standard approaches and try to create interesting gameplay based upon the established rules.
Nice and all, but it doesn't have a lot to do with the epistemological question whether good and bad are objective or subjective.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Alright, then!
I'll rephrase my subjective opinion yet again. If you like Antiga, then that's great. I'm fine with Antiga. But maps are trending away from Antiga, or Daybreak...or CK...I personally think that highly aggressive maps are the future.
To "say whether a map is good or bad" depends on your directive. The majority directive has shifted away from maps like Antiga. You can objectively point out whether design elements follow a certain directive or not. The elements exist. How they are used is how they are used. That shifts play. That forces a specific reaction.
In the case of mapping you can never wholly remove the human element. To argue with such a large body of statistics is pointless because you cannot interpret them. If 50 percent or more people dislike Antiga...there must be a reason. Even if that reason is parroting the opinions of others. I claimed subjectivity because my evidence is anecdotal. Maybe a poll would clear things up.
I'm certainly not the best at debate. I'm hardly even qualified. But...for as many people that parrot why certain maps are good or bad, there are people who have played enough games on a map to know why they do not like it, but do not have the words to express "why."
In the end, though, this is supposed to be an appreciation thread for monitor's maps! An argument occurs when two people with differing opinions set out to change that of the other...or convince them that their opinion holds weight. Difference between a debate is that a debate is structured, does not devolve into a shitfest, and is judged by outside parties.
Ok, that was what I was going to post. I don't really care if you read it or not. Let's not stray from the original purpose of this thread: an appreciation of monitor's maps. Your opinion is justified.
|
Any news on uploading? Want to get my hands on these. 
|
|
|
On March 18 2013 23:52 Gaius Baltar wrote:Any news on uploading? Want to get my hands on these.
Just uploaded them to NA!
|
Yo Monitor!
You got your thread back :D
|
Played a few matches against the computer on Blunderbluss. I dig how the map is so distinctly divided into separate theaters of battle and how the feeling is accentuated by tactical play revolving on the high ground platforms in between each region. Would make a cool ladder map.
ETP, you mean my namesake or do you remember me from the paltry number of posts I've scattered across the map forum the last few years?
|
|
|
Hahahaha, wow I can't believe anybody remembers that. I only ever made that one map, and it was back during the WoL beta, before I had even started playing the game. But I was so sure I knew what I was doing. 
|
Haha. Finally thread back on track. At least it has 100+ replies and looks like the map's got a lot of attention ^^
|
Germany2773 Posts
Not sure where this thread was going but... I want to emphasize again how brilliant these maps are, and how good imo the risk vs reward is managed for all the expansions. Really something many maps in the past failed at and became too turtly. Definitely would love these two played.
|
these maps are really cool. nice work.
|
I really like those maps and I hope that we'll see them on ladder. Great work ! It would be nice to see more of those unorthodox map in tournament play (outside of proleague).
|
I must say I do love Blunderbuss, Monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
