|
On May 09 2014 11:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 11:39 -NegativeZero- wrote:
There's a huge section on how balance/distance of 3rds basically needs to remain constant and you gave a bunch of examples where 3rds are too far/difficult - but for a long time maps have been pushing the envelope with how easy the 3rd bases are. How come experimenting in the opposite direction has been deemed unacceptable? tldr; daybreak. The long version is that daybreak basically set the standard for main-nat-third distances and the game has been more or less balanced around that. If you do want to experiment with thirds a long distance away then you obviously need to be treating the strength of two base play -- you can't give both players a free natural and difficult third because that disproportionately favours non-zerg races and the net result is a ton of stupid two base play which no one really likes. Coriolis gave an solid attempt at making the concept work, but the benefits of the gold base served to accentuate issues rather than fix them -- by that I mean that (for instance) in ZvP the third base is quite difficult for protoss to secure (let alone zerg) so if the protoss allows the zerg to secure the gold base he is basically lost -- since the gold gives an even greater advantage than blue bases making it easier for zergs to shut down the protoss third. Hence it actually encourages protoss even more to play off of two base to prevent this from happening. One solution I see for this (that I would advise most people to not even bother with because they wouldn't be able to execute it properly) is making the natural more difficult to take so that the free two base issue is circumvented. This introduces a bunch of other issues which need to be properly balanced/assessed but could conceivably work. The key here is making it work, because its very easy to break thinks when you're operating outside of the meta the game has been balanced for. Moreover some would argue that we're regressing into early WoL territory (which is true) and that that isn't a good thing (but who knows, early WoL style maps haven't really been tested and a well executed one would definitely pique our interests).
I actually had the exact same idea, hence the 2 entrance nat on Coriolis. What would you consider a "good" difficult natural?
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 09 2014 12:01 Timetwister22 wrote:
I entirely agree with just about 90% of this. I think the disappointing results of this TLMC were a result nothing more than a disappointing submissions. Some maps, despite how cool or neat the ideas are, were bound to just fail for the various reasons listed. So, I can't really complain about how the judges picked the finalists.
Yet, there stands that one thing I don't agree with. The Swarmhost thing is kinda BS in my opinion. Since when did engaging swarmhosts head on be the only approach? Since when did the use of multi-prong attacks with warp prisms, proxy pylons, drops, and air play just disappear? As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough to justify the necessity of multiple ground paths vs swarmhosts, as we haven't had a recent map that has really driven that point home. Even if we have, maybe that map could have just had more features, such as those that straighten air play, to fix the issue. Simply theory crafting that something won't work without giving time for players to adapt is silly in my eyes.
Engaging swarmhosts head on is exactly the wrong approach, and that was a big consideration on these maps. When there was only one real attack path on a map in which swarmhosts would block, that's a problem, especially given how hard it is to attack via air due to a lack of real air paths. If you have to circle the entire map to drop, that's not a good thing. These maps were tested.
|
Another thing to note for mapmakers is the distance between the minerals at mains and naturals and walls.
It's not a major thing (Foxtrot had a daybreak style cannon rushing spot behind the main) but it's better to be aware of these just in case it gets by us.
|
Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection?
|
On May 09 2014 13:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection?
Foxtrot Labs (2nd place) is asymmetrical. It looks like a cross-only map but one of the asymmetrical spawns is actually enabled.
|
On May 09 2014 13:21 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 13:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection? Foxtrot Labs (2nd place) is asymmetrical. It looks like a cross-only map but one of the asymmetrical spawns is actually enabled.
Right, I'd forgotten that horizontal spawns were enabled, but I wasn't asking about asymmetrical spawns but rather if the map itself could be asymmetrical. An example of this would be Rush Hour in BW (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Rush_Hour), though not necessarily to that extent.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 09 2014 13:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 13:21 -NegativeZero- wrote:On May 09 2014 13:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection? Foxtrot Labs (2nd place) is asymmetrical. It looks like a cross-only map but one of the asymmetrical spawns is actually enabled. Right, I'd forgotten that horizontal spawns were enabled, but I wasn't asking about asymmetrical spawns but rather if the map itself could be asymmetrical. An example of this would be Rush Hour in BW ( http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Rush_Hour), though not necessarily to that extent.
Asymmetrical maps aren't excluded because they're asymmetrical. Invariably, they're just not at the level of symmetrical maps and have many many issues. I wouldn't consider Rush asymmetrical -- it was as close to 3 player symmetry we could get in BW until we invented inverted ramps and other things.
|
On May 09 2014 10:09 BronzeKnee wrote:
What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
Well, Blink rushes TvP are just broken. The other two... Forcefields make it hard to have too chokey maps, though that is not just on FFs. As said, chokes are good for early ZvZ as well. Chokey maps can be quite tricky in general because turtling becomes very strong.
Swarm Hosts however... no clue what he is talking about. It's not like strong Swarm Host maps would have been inherently broken. Heavy Rain, Habitation Station, Newkirk, Overgrowth - the best SH maps we had up to now are all pretty balanced maps, at least for PvZ, where Swarm Host scenarios matters most. I'd really like to know about ONE example of a map that was too strong for SHs.
Same goes about the comment about open space (with the Alterzim example). No clue what the problem is with having large open areas in a map (not that Alterzim is a good map, but I don't see how that open space is contributing to the Protoss dominance on that map).
|
Hey Plexa,
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too.
|
Plexa, when it comes to analyzing of maps, it seems to me that mineral lines are also something you should look into, as in Biome, 3rd and 4th mineral lines are different for every base, and it does strange stuff with pathing for larger units (tanks, untras, colos). In Biome, some bases mineral lines are having their area behind them blocked from one side while others arent and one of them is blocked from all places, making it impossible to large units to enter behind those mineral lines, creating possible balance issues.
|
Well said, thanks for a lengthy and useful post to both plexa and the rest of the strategy team who did the hard work of judging for TLMC. I agree with Timetwister (no, surely you jest!) that the submissions led to the "disappointing" results. Though the given restrictions didn't help, I suppose. I hope one day the TLMC is in a place where it can be a little more experimental. Although as a way of generating/filtering for top notch standard maps (the design space of which has not nearly been mined out) it serves well -- e.g. Foxtrot.
|
|
|
Are the 3 base free turtle maps really better than this? Disappointing especially after Cloud Kingdom...
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 09 2014 14:45 CoraBlue wrote:
Hey Plexa,
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too.
No map was excluded because of the number of bases. Your maps needed to work on proportions mostly.
On May 09 2014 16:46 19Meavis93 wrote:so under what would Fallen empire fall? to open middle or what?
Open middle and proportions.
On May 09 2014 16:48 Morbidius wrote:
Are the 3 base free turtle maps really better than this? Disappointing especially after Cloud Kingdom...
Nice throw away comment.
|
On May 09 2014 17:26 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 14:45 CoraBlue wrote:
Hey Plexa,
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too. No map was excluded because of the number of bases. Your maps needed to work on proportions mostly.
I'll keep working on my mapping, but I do want to say this: thank you for being both cordial and helpful during this whole thing. You can tell by my post count that I'm new around here, and I've sent your team more than my fair share of PMs for an unknown, but you guys have been great. TL has become more than just a stream portal for me the last few months and that's an awesome feeling.
You seem to have a grasp on this, but I'll say it anyway. Most of the people posting here asking questions about their maps only want to get better. The more information you can provide to others, the better idea we all have of where we need to head next time. The quality of feedback we get right now is in many ways linked to the quality of maps we'll all see next season. And I don't want my competition to get any easier. 
I may be new at SC2 mapping, but I have had CS maps run in a few pro leagues, including CEVO, so the desire for greatness is there for me. But few are great on their own. Which brings me to my only criticism of this whole thing. I was flying blind. Sure, experience is experience, and nothing trumps that, but you're lucky to get 5 or 10 replies on the forums for a decently put together map and out of those maybe 2 have actually played the thing. There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating.
Keep up the good work.
|
On May 09 2014 14:45 CoraBlue wrote:There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating.
We've all been feeling those feels since the beginning. Your best bet is to collect amicable masters players on your friends list and try to get testing in that way. It's tough though, because even "good" players don't really understand maps and map feedback necessarily. But at least your testing will be indicative of something. Hopefully.
I think this is one of the main reasons why mapmakers trust to theorycrafting since we're trying to create novel gameplay anyway, and it's quite impossible to test to the level where you could validate your map concept and identify and winnow imbalances.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 09 2014 17:54 CoraBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 17:26 Plexa wrote:On May 09 2014 14:45 CoraBlue wrote:
Hey Plexa,
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too. No map was excluded because of the number of bases. Your maps needed to work on proportions mostly. I'll keep working on my mapping, but I do want to say this: thank you for being both cordial and helpful during this whole thing. You can tell by my post count that I'm new around here, and I've sent your team more than my fair share of PMs for an unknown, but you guys have been great. TL has become more than just a stream portal for me the last few months and that's an awesome feeling. You seem to have a grasp on this, but I'll say it anyway. Most of the people posting here asking questions about their maps only want to get better. The more information you can provide to others, the better idea we all have of where we need to head next time. The quality of feedback we get right now is in many ways linked to the quality of maps we'll all see next season. And I don't want my competition to get any easier. I may be new at SC2 mapping, but I have had CS maps run in a few pro leagues, including CEVO, so the desire for greatness is there for me. But few are great on their own. Which brings me to my only criticism of this whole thing. I was flying blind. Sure, experience is experience, and nothing trumps that, but you're lucky to get 5 or 10 replies on the forums for a decently put together map and out of those maybe 2 have actually played the thing. There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating. Keep up the good work. Glad to hear that you like the place! Honestly the best thing for you to do to grow as a mapper is just make maps. Most of them will suck but that's okay. I still have some of Uvantaks first submissions and they were not so good :D while the mapping forum isn't as active as it used to be normally you're able to get some feedback from the community regarding your map(s) and you can take that an improve! Oh, and of course participate in contests when they present themselves.
On May 09 2014 18:02 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 14:45 CoraBlue wrote:There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating. We've all been feeling those feels since the beginning. Your best bet is to collect amicable masters players on your friends list and try to get testing in that way. It's tough though, because even "good" players don't really understand maps and map feedback necessarily. But at least your testing will be indicative of something. Hopefully. I think this is one of the main reasons why mapmakers trust to theorycrafting since we're trying to create novel gameplay anyway, and it's quite impossible to test to the level where you could validate your map concept and identify and winnow imbalances.
As ETP points out, this is a long standing issue. There isn't a magical solution for this and it will be an issue for years to come I'd imagine.
|
Rotational imbalances
This more often than not relates to the previous issue in terms of making thirds accessible. Another issue which makes them inaccessible is a lack of appreciation for rotational spawn imbalances. But rotational imbalances extend beyond that to include differences in medivac vulnerability, fourth accessibility and blink surface areas. To some extent we're happy to accept some degree of rotational imbalance, so long as the advantage isn't overwhelming.
Maps like Nemesis, Samsara and Hunting Grounds exhibit problems like this.
And what about Catallena ? It's the worst 3 players maps I've ever seen, the rotational imbalance is worse than on Merry Go Round. It's also chokey as hell and quite vulnerable to blink stalkers.
|
Back in the day I tried to form the map makers group, for joint testing, but it never took off sadly. The biggest problem there is no incentive for GM players to test maps, and you can't really create intensive without a big personality, or a decent amount of money. Sadly the only possible way to get high masters+ testing is to be one yourself, and even then you will only be able to test 1/2 of the matchups.
Anyways if everyone are asking what was wrong about their maps, if it possible I would love to hear what were the biggest flaws with the map I sent, Kryptonites.
|
On May 09 2014 19:26 moskonia wrote:
Back in the day I tried to form the map makers group, for joint testing, but it never took off sadly. The biggest problem there is no incentive for GM players to test maps, and you can't really create intensive without a big personality, or a decent amount of money. Sadly the only possible way to get high masters+ testing is to be one yourself, and even then you will only be able to test 1/2 of the matchups.
Anyways if everyone are asking what was wrong about their maps, if it possible I would love to hear what were the biggest flaws with the map I sent, Kryptonites.
yep, as mid master random I always have at least 1 play tester ready, but when asking anyone if they want to help testing the response would always be "not now I'm laddering"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
