Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly.
That's your assertion, I don't have any faith in anyone's crystal ball when it comes to looking into the future. Every map is a shot in the dark and if a map becomes great or a dismal failure is ultimately more luck then skill. It's like a hand of poker, ultimately a single map's greatness is 80% lcuk and 20% skill, a good mapper simply has a higher success rate but ultimately still a success rate of about 20%.
I just have slightly more faith into the crystal balls of pro players than pro mappers. But ultimately, anyone who claims they can predict the balance of a map with accuracy is suffering from hubris in my opinion. You take a shot in the dark with maps and hope it works out. Cloud Kingdom and Ohana worked out balance wise but Ohana in my opinion led to boring games. Korhal Compound which won the staff vote turned out to be a balance disaster in ZvP. We'll still going to have to wait what the winners of TLMC2 are going to end up with.
And that includes many of the pros who have a very skewed, racially biased, balance oriented, etc view on maps.
This is very true, people need to be cautious with giving authority to pros in various matters when it concerns balance. Bias can be far stronger than knowledge in various cases.
I think it's not so much that many pros are biased when it comes to maps, it's just that they prefer to play maps they know how to play ("standard shit") over maps they (and everyone else) have to figure out first. It's their job, so it's not surprising they don't want to lose games and money over maps that might turn out to be simply badly designed.
True, but it was a bit weird to not give TMLC a protoss rep. Basically both TLO and Morrow are known to alternate between Z and T. Not putting a representative of the protoss race in between the pros surely at the very least puts in a slight slant against the race in the finalists.
Thats some completely made up bullshit. When and how was it confirmed that these maps were unreasonably imbalanced. Just because you didn't like the maps doesn't mean they were imbalanced, you are just making shit up to talk them down.
I was going by what we saw in the games played on the maps, so I don't really see how that's made up. Now, you can choose to interpret what you saw in the games differently than me, and that's fine, but the opinion isn't coming from nowhere.
Secondly if balance was all there is to a map then sure just let a bunch of pros decide what is most balanced or better yet just reskin and only slightly changed proven balanced maps all the time.
Hence why I said in my quote "anyone with a reasonably good understanding of the game [read: not necessarily pros] is fine as a judge and should choose whichever maps look fun and reasonably balanced to them."
Now if you use only pros, then of course they will probably ignore that bolded word, but some random masters who aren't as competitive and simply have a large love of the game might actually choose some fun stuff.
On August 07 2013 01:51 Ragoo wrote:Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly. And that includes many of the pros who have a very skewed, racially biased, balance oriented, etc view on maps.
I agree with this but in this situation for judging maps I feel the important skill is to identify maps with unfixable problems and take them out of consideration, then as fatam said pick maps for fun. Since you can't 100% predict how a map will play out, why not just get a short list of maps that will most likely not suffer from any major problems, and then choose the ones that seem most fresh and interesting. Imo this should be the central map pool dogma anyway (saving 1 or 2 slot for "standard"), but that doesn't happen in SC2.
On August 07 2013 01:51 Ragoo wrote:Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly. And that includes many of the pros who have a very skewed, racially biased, balance oriented, etc view on maps.
I agree with this but in this situation for judging maps I feel the important skill is to identify maps with unfixable problems and take them out of consideration, then as fatam said pick maps for fun. Since you can't 100% predict how a map will play out, why not just get a short list of maps that will most likely not suffer from any major problems, and then choose the ones that seem most fresh and interesting. Imo this should be the central map pool dogma anyway (saving 1 or 2 slot for "standard"), but that doesn't happen in SC2.
But that's exactly what was happening in TLMC judging (at least as far as monk, Plexa and me goes, as I said I don't entirely trust the pros on deciding about map design or variety).
We had a whole lot of maps kicked out by default cos they just sucked more or less. We were still left with I think a good 40 or so? Out of these we ofc looked for quality crafted maps but actually most of these were rly high enough in terms of execution and aesthetics that you can't complain. More importantly we looked for maps that looked „fun“ as in they would bring some variety to map pools. Once again standard maps are important and always will be but in WCS/ladder map pool there is (and has been) a lot of standard maps so it’s not a bad idea to have more emphasis on maps that bring some more variety for now (and harder to take bases as there were too many turtly ones). I mean just look at what we picked.
Koprulu: Heavy emphasis on harass and multitasking with the double sided bases right from taking the third Electric Circuit and Khalims Will: Kinda similar concept on first three bases with big emphasis on bouncing back and forth between front natural and backdoor entrance (and backdoor natural) and also air harass on backdoor base (and front on Khalims) Keru: After the normal natural and weird, cliffable third that’s kinda in the middle of the map and kinda isn’t the bases are few and far making for aggressive games Strangewood: That map had the usual horizontal/vertical/cross of a 4p mirrored but with the rotational element it actually had 6 different scenarios you could spawn in. A fuck ton of variety right from the start making it hard to plan it out 100% for all your 3 matchups. Frost was rly interesting as well with far and interesting thirds, working all spawn and the problems of taking a fifth ( I only fully realized that after seeing it in RSL/redbull LAN). Best 4p mirrored easily.
Now that’s looking all fine yet the maps that ended up being chosen were Frost, understandable for bringing sth new while being entirely solid, very well made like CK. Yeonsu a map that was basically included because it was solid… and it was in some ways aggressive/small and had an island so that’s probably interesting, altho it’s not rly that groundbreaking and probably the first map that would have been cut by the judges. And then Ravage… a map that only made it because of one judge going overly nuts for it for some unknown reason (well it’s unknown in the sense that he didn’t tell me/us but it’s probably cos it brings nothing new and is just standard). No way this map would ever get picked by judges in top 3 to be added to WCS map pool as it would be an entirely unnoticeable addition.
So yea my point is we DID what you want judges to do and we HAD these really “fun” and interesting maps ready to be added to WCS and make the map pool more interesting. It’s merely for the fact that some idiots at Blizzard and TL think it’s a good idea to pick a bunch of maps and then let the community as a whole (and some more or less pros as a whole) have some consensus vote on which maps offend them (and their close minded, uneducated, racially biased, design/variety-disregarding) views the least.
It’s a fucking dumb idea and we will never get map pool variety with consensus votes by community in TLMC ever!
Lastly coming back to your point about identifying maps with unfixable problems. Yes that’s important as is being able to see when a map doesn’t fulfill minimum aesthetical or execution standards . I believe the people I think are bad at judging can do neither.
edit: I realize this may be seen as offensive to some people are the judges of this. But just as an example, I have watched tons and tons of Dota 2 in the last year and played over a thousand games, yet I barely have had some in-depth thoughts or discussion about hero design in this game. So I would never get the idea to see myself as able to judge a hero design as people who have been doing this for a long time (extreme example being Icefrog) right now at all. Neither would I walk into Mercedes tomorrow and tell the car designers how to do this and that just bases on my experience driving cars or seeing cars being driven. It takes a lot more than that to judge these things. That's a pretty logical thought to me at least.
"We had a whole lot of maps kicked out by default cos they just sucked more or less. We were still left with I think a good 40 or so?"
i have the sickest hubris feeling my map never got to the 40 !?
Hope springs eternal .. i had tried to pick one that was "conscious" of conservatism/balance issues and tried to be "tl melee acceptable" even better / worse, foolishly thought it could be "tlmc material" with just enough "new" stuff in...
We live in a fast food rhythm paced world and "overviews" kill 99% of "originality" in maps+ Show Spoiler +
On August 07 2013 02:14 Ragoo wrote: Also there is barely anything that can substitute a long mapmaking experience, living and breathing maps and SC2's design for some years is integral to being able to judge how a map can play out in the bigger context (not just balance, not just gimmicks, not just "tanks on cliff , map is imba"). Except for very few select people that not only play high level or follow lots of tournaments but actually have a lot of thoughts about what makes maps work and how the SC2 design plays out and discuss this with other people constantly (I would say monk is such a person) nobody can judge maps properly.
I agree with SiskosGoatee on this one. You can watch and breathe games, discuss game design, maps to any degree you like, but let's face it: In the end most of it is just theory crafting. The edge it does give you is minimal. The only way to be sure is to have thousands of high level games on them. But that's just not option, so work with the people that play the game on the highest level that are available to you. And that are Pros. Even if it's "just" BeastyQT. They have so much more insight into the game than every mapper or theory crafter. And here's the deal: innovation comes from the players. Not the mappers. So let's make maps to the best of our abilities, that allow multiple viable playstyles as far as we can tell, and let the players figure out the rest, instead of trying to push them in certain directions.
Make sure your terrain is simple and flat. Do not add lumps, humps, hills, natural ditches, or weird abnormal ground movement. Keep all the terrain flat on all three levels you're given. Going crazy with the terrain will cause graphical issues to many players who are on medium to lower-end computers. Blizzard's stance is they want everyone to be able to play the game without any graphical errors or distractions in the terrain. Also keep it simple on the borders too.
Do not over-do the aesthetics. Along the lines of blizzard wanting performance-approved maps, this includes the usage of doodads. Do -NOT- make areas of your map too dense with aesthetics or it may cause latency for some players. If a medium-size clump of trees caused players to lag on Ohana during ladder games, you can bet your snickers that a more complex usage of doodads in one area will entail the same issue. Again, keep it clean and simple.
How closely must these aesthetic policies be adhered to? If my terrain isn't completely flat and has some parts that are slightly underwater like the original Ohana, is that bad? Also, if there are some static doodad clumps that don't bother my mediocre non-gaming laptop at all, should I remove those preemptively anyway?
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
>.> Shhhhh.... silence
I thought that you could vote for more than an option, but oh well. I voted for Mainframe, the other/s i wanted to vote were Stahl/A Chlann.
In my own maps i think i'm gonna submit Foresta with some improved texturing and a new map that i'm stuck on with the detructable xel'naga tower, i just can't get the dammed thing to work -.-;
Make sure your terrain is simple and flat. Do not add lumps, humps, hills, natural ditches, or weird abnormal ground movement. Keep all the terrain flat on all three levels you're given. Going crazy with the terrain will cause graphical issues to many players who are on medium to lower-end computers. Blizzard's stance is they want everyone to be able to play the game without any graphical errors or distractions in the terrain. Also keep it simple on the borders too.
Do not over-do the aesthetics. Along the lines of blizzard wanting performance-approved maps, this includes the usage of doodads. Do -NOT- make areas of your map too dense with aesthetics or it may cause latency for some players. If a medium-size clump of trees caused players to lag on Ohana during ladder games, you can bet your snickers that a more complex usage of doodads in one area will entail the same issue. Again, keep it clean and simple.
How closely must these aesthetic policies be adhered to? If my terrain isn't completely flat and has some parts that are slightly underwater like the original Ohana, is that bad? Also, if there are some static doodad clumps that don't bother my mediocre non-gaming laptop at all, should I remove those preemptively anyway?
Original Ohana had to be changed exactly because of this.
I can't understand how fucking stupid the CSL team is btw. Again, not allowing more than 2 maps per team is fucking horrible. Not only are teams essentially useless and nothing more but a fun tag, they really don't have any power or do anything. But also most of the mapmakers on the big teams, regardless of how good they are, have never gotten any of their maps in any big tournament.
You are making restrictions because of fucking what? There is a really small amount of active good mapmakers without team. Are you really trying to give the fucking horrible maps a better chance? Limit the amount of good maps you can choose from? Make up fucking random rules that in no way apply to reality, than stick to them regardless of feedback from people who actually know the scene?!
I'm getting sick and tired of what's happening with this beautiful game and the mapmaking scene every other day and you really don't need to add to my anger.
At least you can't prevent anyone from leaving their team or creating new ones or smurfing or whatever, cos your rule is fucking stupid.
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
>.> Shhhhh.... silence
I thought that you could vote for more than an option, but oh well. I voted for Mainframe, the other/s i wanted to vote were Stahl/A Chlann.
In my own maps i think i'm gonna submit Foresta with some improved texturing and a new map that i'm stuck on with the detructable xel'naga tower, i just can't get the dammed thing to work -.-;
hmm i think destructible XNT should be np.. just make sure to get rid of the invulnerable tag that's somewhere in its properties (don't remember exactly where off the top of my head) then set an hp and armor value that you like and voila
of course the other option is to just put a rock tower that falls on the XNT.. afaik falling rocks kill XNTs
On August 13 2013 15:54 RFDaemoniac wrote: Are you guys just trolling Siskos with voting once for every map?
Surely it helps to satisfy my agenda of subjectivity? I like it. If everyone voted for the same that'd almost be a slap in the face to my agenda of subjectivity.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-QScBRLrsoHA/UgG41L8Cs5I/AAAAAAAABuM/69xvBNEtU2U/s500/a%2520chlann.jpg)
!?
)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CbJmbwFm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nos9zRum.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mDnSUwwm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ND9X9dpm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mJuBIunm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1RnKUUtm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3aywWmfm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YMpudYLm.jpg)
