I have been slowly coming back into mapmaking, and now I'm making maps with TPW! Recent weeks provided more free time for me and making maps is still enjoyable. I won't be following the scene 100%, or making maps as frequently as I used to, but I will be around. So here are two new TPW maps for HotS!
Blunderbuss is a two-player map that uses two half-expansions and two gas-only expansions. It also has highground around the map that can be used offensively or defensively. Pathing, except in the center of the map, is highly limited, and requires precise army movement for correct engagements. Aesthetically, the map was inspired by one of my older maps Greenery.
Koprulu is a four-player rotational map, with unusual third base locations. Instead of the standard layout, this map has outer pathways that are blocked by a double-sided expansion. Counterclockwise players have an inbase third but it is easy for the opponent to harass by ground. Clockwise players must cover one more choke point to defend their third, but it is harder for the opponent to harass. Central half-expansions offer an easier fourth base for Terran and Protoss than expanding across the map.
Both maps should be published on NA under the TPW tag. Enjoy, and feedback is welcome!
maps have aggressive potential but will allow longer matches as well once player will learn to use them. especially blunderbuss's territory asks quite some multitasking instead of deathballing - i like!
I always want to see maps with the BW style mineral-rich/gas-rich expansions, nice to see them play out, but I think the gas-only expo is a bit too extreme.
They have that extremelly nice BW style i really like them, they aren't thestandard kind of maps we see, but they aren't so ground breaking either. just the necesary to make them stand, i really want to play on them when HotS arrives, they seem very very interesting.
I'm worried about air play and drops on the 2p map. With mutas being stronger, medivacs being faster and oracles being strong, the ability to ping pong between the forward 3rd, nat & main could be too much. If you take the full base 3rd it's all the way across the map which would spread you out even more.
I'd also like (call me crazy!) d-rocks blocking the small path on those 3rd full bases. Then it'll seem a lot safer because the only way to get into that 3rd would be going down the single wide ramp. That is, until you break rocks down to open up another path.
dunno if the 2p map has anything to do with the song Blunderbuss by Jack White (which Im listening to). Definitely 2 refreshing, BW-ish map which I'd love to see in SPL
On March 11 2013 18:10 Arceus wrote: dunno if the 2p map has anything to do with the song Blunderbuss by Jack White (which Im listening to). Definitely 2 refreshing, BW-ish map which I'd love to see in SPL
It is inspired by the Jack White album! It, along with the folk/bluegrass revival (Mumford, Lumineers, etc.) have restored some of my faith in modern music! [edit]
On March 12 2013 02:02 SiskosGoatee wrote: I don't know if a backyard minral wall natural is balanced but it's brilliant nontheless.
I feel the natural should be more open to compensate though, 3 full bases are too easy to defend this way.
Also, you can warp/blink in over the minerals without a need to acquire vision.
The natural has to be 3 gates to allow forge FEs (yes I still support forge FEs). I suppose I could consider widening it and adding rocks, but I don't see it as a big issue. I'm going to leave it like it is for now.
As for the second part of your comment, that's what the LoS blockers are for!
TPW!? I've missed some things, apparently... as soon as I get a new computer I'll be able to get back into the grove. Mine currently cannot run SCII D: but I'll be getting a better one soon... hopefully.
Blunderbuss is very similar to Sin Chupung Ryeong from Brood War in my opinion, except the natural's vulnerability lies in the orientation of the mineral line and not having two entrances. I like the idea of the gas only expansions. We've seen them before, but now is the chance to really try to get unusual things into HotS maps, and I think your map executes the idea better than the other ones that I've seen.
Koprulu is like a 4P Outsider and looks amazing. The central expansion is something that hasn't been done in a while and the double-sided expansions are usually pretty rare. The map has high risk and high reward all over and I really like it! It's nice to see a purple map - there aren't many purple looking maps around (or am I having a colorblind moment?)
EDIT: Outsider is actually a bit different with regards to the double expansions, so my comparison is inaccurate, but here's a link to the map.
As Siskos points out, perhaps the points at which the forge wall and nexus are placed in a FFE are too intuitively placed outside the natural. The natural does not have to be a 3gate wall, as it is as much a natural as it is a third. However...
-Aesthetically these are gorgeous.
-The nodes on Blunderbuss located at the 2-3 and 8-9 locations (the node beside the halfnodes) don't appear to be take able by either team really. Too close to the have node be for the opponent, to awkwardly placed rampwise for me to take. While a base that late in the game should be counter-attackable there is no reason for the ramps to be that favourable for the opponent. Looking at approximately 120 food army supply for each side, the defender would be out of place and unable to defend this location against anything larger than 6 hellions or 24 lings. Say i take that node as my 4th (the half node being the third (which also is unfavourable because a lot of builds take a 3rd for its gas income moreso than mineral income), at that point in the game, assuming even aggressiveness from both sides all game, that would be the first time in the match where 100+ food armies are beginning to be utilized, in order to cover my new 4th and my natural/main my army would need to be perhaps on my 3rd(a little more towards the main/nat, TBH). Even with ample warning that my opponent is headed for my 4th any ground army I'm hoping to defend it with would be slaughtered trying to fit up the 2 FF ramp to probably where my opponent is waiting at. This circumstance only gets worse if you try and take this as your 5th base.
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.
Surely that is a considerable positional imbalance then?
But anyway, take TvZ cross map for instance, T can easily get 3 bases up behind a very small choke, any harass Z attempts at the backyard before infestors is easily shut down by a single tank, in reverse the bac base from Z if they take them an easily be harassed by T and Z has to walk a loooong way around to deal with it. Coupled with the easy 3 base for T. Seems like it will lead to a rather awkward situation for said Z.
On March 12 2013 10:48 Unsane wrote: I do not see mention in the OP that this map is not forced cross spawn. Do i have to be the one to start the damn movement to force cross spawns on all 4p maps? Im lost how this just isn't standard yet. They are all pretty much instantly better and more balanced once this change is applied to them (take antiga for instance, still terrible but much better).
Although nothing terribly new, this still appears to be a map where good games undoubtedly will take place on terrain well 'groomed'.
Do you think balance is the only thing that a map needs? Why not just put two starting points back to back then?
Balance is just the foundation to a good map. Any map can be balanced through a series of adjustments, Blizzard just sucks at it. The community doesn't. A good map also includes a concept, innovation, uniqueness in my opinion. Forcing cross spawns makes a 4p map play like a badly designed 2 player map. If anything, 4p maps should be forced close and designed to play that way.
For starters, any predictability means less enjoyment. Sure i love watching IMMvP smash someone with mech (predictable) but predictability subtracts from any degree of suspense which is a large contributor to the enjoyment of watching pro sports. The number of times i had a player ask me why i did not drop him due to favourable antiga positions was annoying. I want to beat him ONLY because i am a better player, and honestly that phrase does the idea no justice. I want the better player to almost always win.*** I do not want one side handicapped cause of a coinflip. In a lot of matches you can note that a player can make maybe 2 mistakes before he is 'out' (the 3rd being the final 'strike'), so lets have maps where that first 'mistake' is actually a coin flip he cannot control? That is a terrible idea. Particularly considering that most average player's experience with this game is an endless stream of best-of-one's, starting off a best-of-one series with a handicap is also a terrible idea.
Secondly, yes maps can be balanced with a series of adjustments. The first adjustment every 4p map needs to be more balanced is forced cross spawns.
And you're right. They are badly designed 2 player maps, considering 2 players are playing on them and they have 4 spawn locations that all look the same.
Lastly, though. Your reply essentially admits that 4p non-force-cross maps are unbalanced. I could further extrapolate what you could mean but i'll refrain and remain with the tangible. This is an E-sport. An E-sport. As bad as blizzard is at balancing their sport, you are hindering their progress. Any inbalance is bad for any sport and you are not helping. What you're saying is you want players coinflipped into Code S, coinflipped into huge cash prizes because of the silliest of standards put in place by blizzard who you yourself bashed. I dare say you are either not aiding the map making community or posting in the wrong place. I would like to see this E-sport prosper...
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. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
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. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared...
But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here...
this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
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. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared...
But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here...
this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
I have no idea what you were trying to say. You ok?
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. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared...
But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here...
this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
I have no idea what you were trying to say. You ok?
EDIT: Happy Birthday yo
What i was trying to say is the positional imbalance imposed by 4p maps is not something that aids E-sports and could only be a hold over from a time when blizzard's RTSs weren't E-sports minded. (what i meant by RPing was 'role-playing', if anyone missed that)
I think what they're trying to say in response to that is that every 4p map doesn't have to be cross spawn, only the ones that weren't designed well enough in the first place.
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. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared...
But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here...
this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
I have no idea what you were trying to say. You ok?
EDIT: Happy Birthday yo
What i was trying to say is the positional imbalance imposed by 4p maps is not something that aids E-sports and could only be a hold over from a time when blizzard's RTSs weren't E-sports minded. (what i meant by RPing was 'role-playing', if anyone missed that)
PS thanks yo, i get HOTS for my b-day :D
4p maps don't impose positional imbalance. Poorly designed maps do. Fatam hit the nail on the head:
On March 12 2013 12:33 Fatam wrote: I think what they're trying to say in response to that is that every 4p map doesn't have to be cross spawn, only the ones that weren't designed well enough in the first place.
Also, StarCraft II was always eSports-minded. The competitive portion was designed for it (hence all the observer features that came with launch).
On March 12 2013 10:48 Unsane wrote: I do not see mention in the OP that this map is not forced cross spawn. Do i have to be the one to start the damn movement to force cross spawns on all 4p maps? Im lost how this just isn't standard yet. They are all pretty much instantly better and more balanced once this change is applied to them (take antiga for instance, still terrible but much better).
Although nothing terribly new, this still appears to be a map where good games undoubtedly will take place on terrain well 'groomed'.
Do you think balance is the only thing that a map needs? Why not just put two starting points back to back then?
Balance is just the foundation to a good map. Any map can be balanced through a series of adjustments, Blizzard just sucks at it. The community doesn't. A good map also includes a concept, innovation, uniqueness in my opinion. Forcing cross spawns makes a 4p map play like a badly designed 2 player map. If anything, 4p maps should be forced close and designed to play that way.
For starters, any predictability means less enjoyment. Sure i love watching IMMvP smash someone with mech (predictable) but predictability subtracts from any degree of suspense which is a large contributor to the enjoyment of watching pro sports. The number of times i had a player ask me why i did not drop him due to favourable antiga positions was annoying. I want to beat him ONLY because i am a better player, and honestly that phrase does the idea no justice. I want the better player to almost always win.*** I do not want one side handicapped cause of a coinflip. In a lot of matches you can note that a player can make maybe 2 mistakes before he is 'out' (the 3rd being the final 'strike'), so lets have maps where that first 'mistake' is actually a coin flip he cannot control? That is a terrible idea. Particularly considering that most average player's experience with this game is an endless stream of best-of-one's, starting off a best-of-one series with a handicap is also a terrible idea.
Secondly, yes maps can be balanced with a series of adjustments. The first adjustment every 4p map needs to be more balanced is forced cross spawns.
And you're right. They are badly designed 2 player maps, considering 2 players are playing on them and they have 4 spawn locations that all look the same.
Lastly, though. Your reply essentially admits that 4p non-force-cross maps are unbalanced. I could further extrapolate what you could mean but i'll refrain and remain with the tangible. This is an E-sport. An E-sport. As bad as blizzard is at balancing their sport, you are hindering their progress. Any inbalance is bad for any sport and you are not helping. What you're saying is you want players coinflipped into Code S, coinflipped into huge cash prizes because of the silliest of standards put in place by blizzard who you yourself bashed. I dare say you are either not aiding the map making community or posting in the wrong place. I would like to see this E-sport prosper...
I understand your reasoning (and I agree with it) but you couldn't be more wrong about cross spawns. Close spawns can work in 4p maps, it's just that Blizzard hasn't shown us any good examples. The logic you're using eventually leads to "sc2 should only have 2p maps" (or reflection symmetry 4p). But that isn't the case. Rotational symmetry can be perfectly balanced like Fighting Spirit. Or it can be like my map Koprulu, where spawns have advantages and disadvantages that balance out.
If you don't understand, take a look at Brood war. You may not know, but it was infact an E-sport too. I'm sure you don't know this, but Brood War also used many four player rotational maps. There were a grand total of ZERO maps with forced cross spawns. Take a look through bw liquidpedia maps, SCBW international database, and bwmaps.net if you want to educate yourself. Otherwise, you're the one posting in the wrong place.
On March 12 2013 14:35 EatThePath wrote: Unsane, I think you need to do some critical reflecting on what is meant by balance.
Regardless of how little I have to go off, I'll do some 'critical reflecting' of what I think balance means. Perfect balance would allow every build and strat to always work to equal potential, in every match up on every map. However without any variation in the quality of each strat you would simply have the highest APM player winning every match, regardless of what map. In that case you might as well only use one map which might as well be a featureless map. However, I'm pretty sure here in this forum we are trying to better the game through creative use of terrain and other features modifiable through the map editor to create an interesting palette for the players to create masterpieces on. I'm always happy to see a new strat used, whether its because of a new map or not. A good build and good play is better with better mechanics, a less educated opponent, poor scouting and a poor ability to think under pressure. That is good balance. As a build becomes well known it should become less effective but shouldn't phase out. That is also good balance. Even as drastically as a map can change, a good build should still work well enough on each map to be potentially used, although unlikely. As your opponent becomes more gosu, perhaps through great scouting and great prediction, the build should get worse. That's also good balance. Perhaps someone else could chip in and also critically reflect on what is meant by balance?
On a 4p map, with regards to the balance, the angle of attack favours one player with close spawns, there are less counterattack paths (usually less than about half) and drops become easier which favours one race quite a bit more than the two others. 4p maps also effect scouting in the early game and some timings are crucial to scout for, sometimes you lose cause the 6pool was in the other clock-direction that you scouted. Whether it is a professional filled tournament or myself sitting in my home queuing the ol' best of one ladder i do not look forward to realizing i am either in unfavourable or EVEN favourable positions on a 4p map, however these imbalances wind up effecting the game. A fairly simple way i like to consider things as is each player has 3 strikes per match, a major blunder can be worth 2 and sometimes even all 3 strikes, costing you the match. The game is not balanced enough if a dice roll in the load screen removes perhaps 1 strike from myself or my opponent.
I also think 4p maps simply recreates the same sort of play in twice the areas that is has to and there are additional limitations on the layout. For example, even though you only have 2 players on a the map it still has to be designed to accept the flow of a large army leading from 4 naturals to the middle of the map. A 4th or 5th is also just as defensable as a main because in some cases it is a main. While a map could be balanced to play without forced cross If you were to try and make either CK or daybreak a 4p map it'd kill how great the center layouts are, which are very interesting, yet extremely different. Koprulu's center is very interesting and i love it but it could be twice as interesting if the restrictions of being a 4p map weren't there.
Slight imbalances in play is ok, it leads to more unpredictability than it does predictability. Also it is the right kind of predictability, though. The kind that leads you to not know how games will play out until you play them, not the kind that leads to world class players losing to randoms. I think everyone is much happier to lose to a person, not a die.
I'll admit very little knowledge to much of BW's pro scene, particularly in the early days so you'll have to specify which 4p maps were considered good regardless of known rotational imbalances and how they wouldn't be better (more balanced without creating stale play) if they were forced cross. You are again, though, using an old standard while im am trying to get you to think critically about that standard. I don't care how good BW was (i do, actually) because it could have been better, it was not perfect. I do not care to go look up the exact logical fallacy i am trying to get you over, but this is a hindrance we don't need. "Cause that's how we've always done it..." is a terrible excuse for anything.
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. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared...
But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here...
this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
^ This, btw, is the definition of critical thinking. I could write the fucking definition on it.
On March 12 2013 14:35 EatThePath wrote: Unsane, I think you need to do some critical reflecting on what is meant by balance.
Regardless of how little I have to go off, I'll do some 'critical reflecting' of what I think balance means. Perfect balance would allow every build and strat to always work to equal potential, in every match up on every map. However without any variation in the quality of each strat you would simply have the highest APM player winning every match, regardless of what map. In that case you might as well only use one map which might as well be a featureless map. However, I'm pretty sure here in this forum we are trying to better the game through creative use of terrain and other features modifiable through the map editor to create an interesting palette for the players to create masterpieces on. I'm always happy to see a new strat used, whether its because of a new map or not. A good build and good play is better with better mechanics, a less educated opponent, poor scouting and a poor ability to think under pressure. That is good balance. As a build becomes well known it should become less effective but shouldn't phase out. That is also good balance. Even as drastically as a map can change, a good build should still work well enough on each map to be potentially used, although unlikely. As your opponent becomes more gosu, perhaps through great scouting and great prediction, the build should get worse. That's also good balance. Perhaps someone else could chip in and also critically reflect on what is meant by balance?
On a 4p map, with regards to the balance, the angle of attack favours one player with close spawns, there are less counterattack paths (usually less than about half) and drops become easier which favours one race quite a bit more than the two others. 4p maps also effect scouting in the early game and some timings are crucial to scout for, sometimes you lose cause the 6pool was in the other clock-direction that you scouted. Whether it is a professional filled tournament or myself sitting in my home queuing the ol' best of one ladder i do not look forward to realizing i am either in unfavourable or EVEN favourable positions on a 4p map, however these imbalances wind up effecting the game. A fairly simple way i like to consider things as is each player has 3 strikes per match, a major blunder can be worth 2 and sometimes even all 3 strikes, costing you the match. The game is not balanced enough if a dice roll in the load screen removes perhaps 1 strike from myself or my opponent.
I also think 4p maps simply recreates the same sort of play in twice the areas that is has to and there are additional limitations on the layout. For example, even though you only have 2 players on a the map it still has to be designed to accept the flow of a large army leading from 4 naturals to the middle of the map. A 4th or 5th is also just as defensable as a main because in some cases it is a main. While a map could be balanced to play without forced cross If you were to try and make either CK or daybreak a 4p map it'd kill how great the center layouts are, which are very interesting, yet extremely different. Koprulu's center is very interesting and i love it but it could be twice as interesting if the restrictions of being a 4p map weren't there.
Slight imbalances in play is ok, it leads to more unpredictability than it does predictability. Also it is the right kind of predictability, though. The kind that leads you to not know how games will play out until you play them, not the kind that leads to world class players losing to randoms. I think everyone is much happier to lose to a person, not a die.
I'll admit very little knowledge to much of BW's pro scene, particularly in the early days so you'll have to specify which 4p maps were considered good regardless of known rotational imbalances and how they wouldn't be better (more balanced without creating stale play) if they were forced cross. You are again, though, using an old standard while im am trying to get you to think critically about that standard. I don't care how good BW was (i do, actually) because it could have been better, it was not perfect. I do not care to go look up the exact logical fallacy i am trying to get you over, but this is a hindrance we don't need. "Cause that's how we've always done it..." is a terrible excuse for anything.
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. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared...
But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here...
this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
^ This, btw, is the definition of critical thinking. I could write the fucking definition on it.
That was good start, actually. Unfortunately I don't understand that last part, the P.S.
I guess I'll just point out that Starcraft is a captivating game because of asymmetry and partial information. I'd even go so far as to say these are pillars of good games. Or at least, themes that show up over and over and over.
To address, as an example, your contentions about scouting on 4 spawn maps: the ramifications of this at the pro level are far deeper than you might first imagine. It can affect the very beginning actions as well as build choices that lead down long paths to misinformation trickery or option denial. The path of a scouting worker can reveal everything, just based on position and timing. It's not a bad thing that you can 6pool unscouted. That's part of the map, and players should play accordingly.
At almost every point in a game of starcraft, the players are in different situations. Rarely are they really mirrored. If a map puts players in different situations by default, this doesn't really change the nature of the game.
I'll admit very little knowledge to much of BW's pro scene, particularly in the early days so you'll have to specify which 4p maps were considered good regardless of known rotational imbalances and how they wouldn't be better (more balanced without creating stale play) if they were forced cross. You are again, though, using an old standard while im am trying to get you to think critically about that standard. I don't care how good BW was (i do, actually) because it could have been better, it was not perfect. I do not care to go look up the exact logical fallacy i am trying to get you over, but this is a hindrance we don't need. "Cause that's how we've always done it..." is a terrible excuse for anything.
I appreciate the well-detailed response! This is the part that I think I can respond to-
I agree that the logic of doing what has worked in the past is not a good one. BW is just an example of 4p rotational maps working. SC2 and BW share all of the gameplay mechanics that you argue are what make the rotational designs not work, so I think it works in this scenario. Blizzard's SC2 maps are terrible though, so I can understand why you have no faith in 4p maps!
Once there are many good 4p maps in SC2, I think you'll believe me. Here are some of my personal favorite BW rotational 4p maps that were considering balanced, innovative, and fun to play/observe:
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, here? You're quite ambiguous. If talking about Unsane's claim that all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross spawns, that's actually on him to prove if we want to play the logic game (burden of proof is on the one making the claim). If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues. Either way, your post is a waste of space.
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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
I disagree, the map is awesome no matter what spawns you get and provides far more varied gameplay than most maps:
- 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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, legally, but surely you fully intend to kill something you eat?
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.
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.
It isn't an instinct, it's rationality. The most efficient way to get people to do what you want for them and compensating the least is slavery. Compassion is irrational. A man without feelings, given a task which is to be completed in the most efficient answer will not hire employees and pay them well, he will enslave people and force them to work. Slaves are cheap, employees are not, the only thing that stops us from resorting to slavery is irrational compassion
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.
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.
'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.
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?
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.
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?
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 01:07 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?
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 02:14 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.
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 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 02:02 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
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.
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.
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?
@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.
@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?
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.[/qupte]It was popular enough to be given a name and mentioned on his liquipedia page, apart from that many Zergs take golds in ZvP for a variety of reasons on maps that have them. It'; s also pretty popular on planet S.
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).
That's not what a winner's base is though. A winner's base is a base that you can only take if you are so far ahead you have already won. So we are basically in agreement that controlling the centre is very important on antiga.
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.
Then explain the magnificent 51% TvZ winrate on this map?
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.
GomTV usually has length averages when won but their stats page suddenly seems to be down.
Anyway, I flat out think what you say is nonsense because I see Zergs secure fourths on antiga all the time. I just put in in youtube 'TvZ, antiga', these are my top results:
- Thorzain vs Sheth, Zerg secures fourth, - Cats vs Demuslim, Zerg secures fourth - Xigua vs BeastyQT, zerg secures fourth - Smile vs LzGamer, Zerg secures fourth - TLO vs Select, Zerg secures fourth
These aren't cherry picked, these are the top 5 results on youtube for the query 'TvZ antiga'.
I'm sorry, but I'm simply not impressed by your self proclaimed knowledge of how maps play out at this point, you keep saying things which at this point become demonstratively false to the point that one might say it is "objectively" false that it is "super hard" to get a sustainable fourth base economy on this map.
I'd say they didn't know something that I did.
I see, do you leave room for the possibility of the reverse?
To be fair, most of the most watched VODs are games that go into the late (often late, late) game, because those become more popular because of being more "epic". This makes it super likely that people took 4ths (and probably 5ths as well) in the top viewed youtube VODs, for any map or any matchup.
LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
I'd say they didn't know something that I did.
I see, do you leave room for the possibility of the reverse?
Yes. I am always open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I want SC2 to be the best game it can be.
On March 15 2013 13:16 monitor wrote: LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
You can argue the same thing of all the other games that Z lost that they are over before T takes their third. Except Demu versus Catz but Catz just threw it with bad engagements. In any case none of the games showed a 'hard to hold fourth', the fourth bases were only starting to fall when T started t get a massive army supply lead which is what tends to happen in those cases.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on the 51% TvZ winrate on antiga, is it your contention that ZvT all ins are very popular and powerful on antiga?
On March 15 2013 13:16 monitor wrote: LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
You can argue the same thing of all the other games that Z lost that they are over before T takes their third. Except Demu versus Catz but Catz just threw it with bad engagements. In any case none of the games showed a 'hard to hold fourth', the fourth bases were only starting to fall when T started t get a massive army supply lead which is what tends to happen in those cases.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on the 51% TvZ winrate on antiga, is it your contention that ZvT all ins are very popular and powerful on antiga?
You could argue that, but it's harder to argue than my position . I think we'd need a bigger sample size to make any conclusions, such as analyzing 100+ games that were at the pro level with equal skill. Also it'd need to be in a relative close time period since the metagame changes. But it would be possible. The games show, as well as many other games that are available (especially ones that aren't on the top of youtube because of epicness).
My argument is not that Antiga is imbalanced. Statistics show that it is. I'm saying I don't like the gameplay or the way it's balanced.
My argument is not that Antiga doesn't produce good games. I've seen many good games. Merely, I'm arguing that we could have much more epic games if we had a better map.
I'd be willing to bet that zerg wins more frequently in games under 16 minutes than in games over 16 minutes (I'm not sure about the number 16, but you get my point). GOM statistics with a sample size of 100+ games would be alright with me if they're public information.
Siskos, what are you trying to prove, man? "Objectively" that monitor's opinions are poor or unfounded? I've noticed that many threads you're in tends to devolve into a one man stand by you.
Raw statistics alone don't prove much regarding map design...Sure, they point towards overall balance, but how much of that balance is due to a sharp shift in playstyle that the map forces one player/race to make? Balance is not an overall indicator of good map design. Interpretation of statistics is key.
Sure that percentage provides some evidence, but you're not interpreting it. How many games of Antiga's 51% TvZ winrate consist of the Zerg player doing a three base or two base allin? How many games consist of the Zerg getting some sort of advantage that clears them to take a whole side of the map?
An equal and opposite amount of games consist of the Zerg being set back and unable to get anywhere economically. They consist of a Zerg taking a 4th only to lose it minutes later to a drop/push. Many of these games were decided the moment a superior player faced an inferior one.
Much better is to analyze a map's design: the beauty and simplicity of its layout, consistency in application and purpose, cleanliness of execution. These are the things that skilled and amateur mapmakers alike should appreciate!
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: 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.
That's exactly the point. I didn't have plural arguments. Keep trying to seem pseudo-smart, though.
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: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 did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
On March 15 2013 13:16 monitor wrote: LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
You can argue the same thing of all the other games that Z lost that they are over before T takes their third. Except Demu versus Catz but Catz just threw it with bad engagements. In any case none of the games showed a 'hard to hold fourth', the fourth bases were only starting to fall when T started t get a massive army supply lead which is what tends to happen in those cases.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on the 51% TvZ winrate on antiga, is it your contention that ZvT all ins are very popular and powerful on antiga?
My argument is not that Antiga is imbalanced. Statistics show that it is. I'm saying I don't like the gameplay or the way it's balanced.
Yes, but you speak of this map being very hard on Z in certain ways yet it is balanced, this implies the existence of a cancelling factor, what is it?.
What in yur opinion makes antiga balanced despite Z being unable to secure a fourth, what is the cancellng factor?
My argument is not that Antiga doesn't produce good games. I've seen many good games. Merely, I'm arguing that we could have much more epic games if we had a better map.
My argument is that it produces better games than most maps (in my opinion), therefore it is a better map (in my opinion). The difficulty of holding a fourth contributes to this because it creates tense low econ games where both players are struggling to secure that fourth.
I'd be willing to bet that zerg wins more frequently in games under 16 minutes than in games over 16 minutes (I'm not sure about the number 16, but you get my point). GOM statistics with a sample size of 100+ games would be alright with me if they're public information.
I'm waiting for the gom stats page to come back online then.
On March 15 2013 13:49 Qwyn wrote: Siskos, what are you trying to prove, man? "Objectively" that monitor's opinions are poor or unfounded? I've noticed that many
In this case I'm trying to prove that there is no proof that antiga shipyard close positions is imbalanced, that antiga itself is imbalance (thusfar admitted by most people) or that it is a terrible map.
Note that proving there is no proof for something is not a proof to the contrary.
threads you're in tends to devolve into a one man stand by you.
I'm not so easily swayed by argumenta ad popula. There's a lot of shit people believe just because it's parroted which is blatently false.
Raw statistics alone don't prove much regarding map design...Sure, they point towards overall balance, but how much of that balance is due to a sharp shift in playstyle that the map forces one player/race to make? Balance is not an overall indicator of good map design. Interpretation of statistics is key.
Sure, but people were saying that close pos antiga was _imbalanced_, raw statistics would prove or disprove that.
Sure that percentage provides some evidence, but you're not interpreting it. How many games of Antiga's 51% TvZ winrate consist of the Zerg player doing a three base or two base allin? How many games consist of the Zerg getting some sort of advantage that clears them to take a whole side of the map?
Truth be told. People are in my experience surprised antiga is balancd. Originally everyone was saying it was a Terran map, then it turns out to be balanced and they made other excuses. I don't think people are nearly as good in estimating this as they think they are. I always take crossfire to heart as a particular example. everyone when it came out assumed that it would be a nightmare for ZvP. But slowly and slwly people started to admit that it was in fact the reverse. Artosis kept holding on to his belief that it was a nightmare in ZvP up to the bitter end where Wolf had long recanted.
Which is another thing I'm trying to prove, people don't know nearly as much as they think they do.
Much better is to analyze a map's design: the beauty and simplicity of its layout, consistency in application and purpose, cleanliness of execution. These are the things that skilled and amateur mapmakers alike should appreciate!
THis isn't objective and leads you no-where in discussion, my analysis of antiga is that it's a good map that creates tense games for a multitude of topological reasons (it looks horribly undetailed though). Montor's analysis isn't. Gee, then it becomes a yes-no game, totally uninteresting. Then there's the other thing, people are just stupidly biased versus blizzard maps.
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: 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.
That's exactly the point. I didn't have plural arguments. Keep trying to seem pseudo-smart, though.
You had more than one argumentum ad populum in our history dude. Just admit you're horribly embarassed and didn't know that the plural of argumentum ad populum is argumenta ad populum.
You would have never raised this silly issue if I used 'appeal to popularity' and then 'relying on appeals to popularity'.
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: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 did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
He said right from the start that blizzard and tournaments have made it cross-spawn for balance reasons:
If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues.
He gave you the source of where to find the imbalance arguements/data. You can do two things now: -) disagree with his choice of source and show why blizzard and tournament organizers are not to trust in balance questions -) get the arguements/data from the source yourself
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
He said right from the start that blizzard and tournaments have made it cross-spawn for balance reasons:
THat's not a number. And I'm pretty sure they haven't, they did it because people wanted it, that's a difference. People generally don't like to see rushes so they increase rush distance.
The inclusion of maps like Atlantis Spaceship and Metropolis pretty much flat out demonstrates that Tournaments don't give a flying damn about balance. They, as smart businesspeople, give the people what they want.
If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues.
He gave you the source of where to find the imbalance arguements/data. You can do two things now: -) disagree with his choice of source and show why blizzard and tournament organizers are not to trust in balance questions -) get the arguements/data from the source yourself
No, he did not give me a source where to give this data at all, You think I can email blizzard and just get it?
I'm accusing him of thinking it is imbalanced without ever having looked into the numbers just because everyone says so. I don't think Blizzard made this change at all because of balance, if that was the case they could've done it a year back. They did it because people wanted it.
Note that Shakuras had close pos disabled from the very start back when metalopolis and shattered temple still had it on the ladder, demonstrating that Blizzard is willing to disable close spawns when they are actually broken. THey are not, and were never broken on metalopolis or shattered temple or Blizzard would've done it long before. They just gave it because people wanted it, that's all.
And again I stress, it is undeniable that tournaments don't give a flying damn picking their map pool based on balance if you look at the ridiculously imbalanced stuff that often finds its way in there.
On March 15 2013 22:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yes, but you speak of this map being very hard on Z in certain ways yet it is balanced, this implies the existence of a cancelling factor, what is it?.
What in yur opinion makes antiga balanced despite Z being unable to secure a fourth, what is the cancellng factor?
I should think this one is obvious, lest you're grasping at straws again. You've glossed over the point of interpretation of statistics without really going into why it is or isn't important. You simply trail off into how everyone knows nothing. Again.
On March 16 2013 01:22 SiskosGoatee wrote: Well, then you tell me. What cancells this out, what feature of antiga gives Z an edge up and in what way?
It's already been mentioned, but I'll bite. The Zerg player on this map is forced to win the game based on 2 and 3 base timings, or else secure some advantage early on that enables them to take either the gold base or half the map straight up. A lot can happen before a 4-base timing becomes relevant, a map can be technically balanced with a shit 4th base.
Yeah, so, again, what feature of antiga makes these 2-3base timings so much more powerful than on say Cloud Kingdom or daybreak?
Your not answering my question, why are these timings more powerful on antiga?
Personally, I'm not at all noticing them to be any more common. There was an era where a certain 2-2 ling/bane/muta bust was popular on this map but that has long past. I'm just not seeing 2-3base timings any more often on antiga than on cloud kingdom or daybreak.
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
He said right from the start that blizzard and tournaments have made it cross-spawn for balance reasons:
If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues.
He gave you the source of where to find the imbalance arguements/data. You can do two things now: -) disagree with his choice of source and show why blizzard and tournament organizers are not to trust in balance questions -) get the arguements/data from the source yourself
Why do I respond, Siskos? This is why. Other, more reasonable people read these threads too. There's no point complaining for me to tell you from the start that I'm not giving you numbers, because I did say from the start that I'm not giving you numbers and to go find them yourself.
By the way, desperately trying to paint me as "embarrassed" over argumenta v argumentum with such weak reasoning? Please. I made one argument in this thread. Trying to fabricate the notion that I've made multiple logical fallacies in the past, and that you were actually referring to my entire post history, is such a silly rewriting of history. You realize anyone can just go back pages and read your posts, yes?
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.
Your sentence there clearly says I'm basing my case (singular form; plural would be cases, in case you didn't catch that) on argumenta ad populum. Anyone with even a grade school understanding of context would understand you were only referring to the statements I made in this thread. I'll ask once again: you done being pseudo-smart?
"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."
I did exactly that, I accused you of relying on popular arguments. Are you honestly saying you fell over the plural form here?
I did exactly that at that point, I originally accused you of relying on appeals to popularity. Argumenta is completely valid and you're just working yourself into a corner, you simply didn't know the plural form of argumentum is argumenta.
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)
I wasn't labeling your point, I was labeling your points. It's blatently obvious you had no idea it was the plural form. your sentence isn't even grammatical unless you assume that. If you were debating that I should've used a singular form it would be: "Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my points as "argumenta ad populum" (it's actually an argumentum, I made only one, but I digress)". If you actually meant to communicate with that sentence that the crux was that you only made one point, not multiple. You have the most terrible explanation skills ever, and on top of that misconstrued grammar because you forgot the singular indefinite article 'an' in this case.
You didn't know argumenta was the plural form, you got caught on it and now you're desperately trying to save yourself.
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.
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.
That does not change my subjective opinion that a majority of people hate Antiga (from what I have observed).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And then we have this gem:
On March 16 2013 01:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: I wasn't labeling your point, I was labeling your points. It's blatently obvious you had no idea it was the plural form.
Hey, Siskos, did you not actually read the sentence of mine you quoted? I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.
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)
Just focus on the bold part. Basically, you're a grammatical mess. We've already been over how I've only made one point in this thread, and just so we're absolutely clear, I'm going to reiterate the point: Antiga's non-cross balance issues are unanimously acknowledged by the professional tournaments and Blizzard Entertainment itself. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, the logical fallacy you'd actually want to use is argumentum ad verecundiam.
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. + 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.
We'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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
We'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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P8VyM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/li8zssb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Jq4GsSv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UMmUgte.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LXontZs.jpg)
Some interesting ideas here.
![[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)
