EPTLet's talk about TLMC4 - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
| ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
You made me realize what a god awful map Antiga Shipyard is. It single handedly broke almost every rule in the book. haha. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much. Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps. | ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 09 2014 21:48 Existor wrote: With your priorities and requirements, any of ladder maps can't win your Map contest at all. With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much. Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps. Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here. | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
On May 09 2014 21:54 Plexa wrote: Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here. Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance | ||
|
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On May 09 2014 19:17 algue wrote: 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. Catallena is JUST large enough to overcome those rotational imbalances. At first glance, we were skeptical that it would be ridiculously imba, but on further playtesting, we found that it actually provided fairly interesting and balanced games (albeit, it WAS quite hard to take a 3rd and 4th compared to the other maps). It's a good map. (For the record, it's also infinitely better than Merry Go Round, imo). Hunting Grounds in close positions, on the other hand, allows one player to always get a free and safe 3rd (and 4th) while allowing a very short walk directly into the 3rd of their opponent in a place where it was nearly impossible to get vision. The biggest issue here was in TvZ, where the distance between the natural and the Zerg 3rd was ~30s, and it was impossible to get creep spread over in this corridor fast enough (especially with reaper/hellion harass limiting the creep). In addition, the flank was huge, but that's a minor point comparatively. In short, Hunting Grounds might have benefited from slightly longer distances. On May 09 2014 22:05 algue wrote: Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance How many Protoss players do you know that don't veto Waystation? | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:05 algue wrote: Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance Ah yes quite right. It's also not a very good map as John points out! But it does serve as yet another case study of what happens when thirds are too far. Also, what does Waystation and Alterzim have in common! Merry go round would have fallen into the 'acceptable degree' of rotational imbalance. There's clearly been a lot of thought trying to mitigate as much spawn imbalance as possible. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/crus600m7pnq.png) I see three points in the OP that might possibly apply to Crusader, but I was considering these when designing the map and I thought I had taken sufficient measures to make them non-issues: Nat2Nat distances On close spawns (NE vs SE) the nat2nat distance is 39 seconds. This is alleviated by that a) there's a watchtower overlooking both short attack routes, b) there's an overlord spot in front of the natural entrance, c) the natural choke is right at the base (I'm generally of the opinion that for nat2nat, base to choke is a more important distance than base to base), d) there's a second forward choke, e) when taking a third you expand away from your opponent, and f) it's a four player map (also see SidianTheBard's post which I agree with). Furthermore, this map revolves around the idea of providing six different types of games on one map, so you only get the NE vs SE matchup in one out of six games. And if the 39 seconds were still an issue, you could even disable NE vs SE spawns and still end up with five different combinations, unlike on axially symmetric maps where if you disable close positions you only have two combinations left. Blink Stalkers Lots of surface area at the backdoor third, but stalkers need to go a long way around to bounce between there and the natural. Also, the natural choke is super close to the base, so it becomes even less of a problem for Terran to defend blink play economically, right? And the Protoss main can easily be scouted with Reapers so you'll see it coming. Accessibility of thirds Is there a problem with Zerg being forced to take the backdoor third in half of the cardinal spawns? I thought this wasn't an issue because in those cases you expand away from your opponent, and an opponent attacking that base before the rocks are down would be out of position and vulnerable to runbys. So... I dunno, was the main backdoor the problem? Or the four gold bases? Also, I can see why Paradise Found didn't make it (especially the location of the thirds), but I'd like to hear whether there was also a particular problem with the main/nat setup (blink play?) since it is quite unusual and partly inspired by Into the Wilds. Thanks! On May 09 2014 11:05 Corazon wrote: Also Daedalus was ridiculously bad and anyone using that as a reference for their point is essentially digging themselves a hole. Did you read this analysis? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:14 Plexa wrote: Ah yes quite right. It's also not a very good map as John points out! But it does serve as yet another case study of what happens when thirds are too far. Also, what does Waystation and Alterzim have in common! Open space. Could you please explain what's the problem with open spaces, since you keep on saying and hinting that it's a problem, don't say why... Waystation is rather anti-Protoss (in both matchups). Alterzim is rather pro-Protoss (in both matchups). Neither has to do with the open space, but with base setups (3rd base on Waystation is so far away for P) and how bad SHs are on Alterzim. Also Frost is very open too. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On May 09 2014 14:38 Big J wrote: 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). I'll let Whitewing answer this: On May 09 2014 12:33 Whitewing wrote: 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. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:26 BronzeKnee wrote: I'll let Whitewing answer this: yeah, which map does that apply to? Maps with only one attack path and hard to drop on are in general going to be extremely boring and blockable with various strategies. And are probably going to be broken in TvP long before they are broken for SH play. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
Instead of humbleness, self proclaimed experts show bias and sell them as truths. You see, instead of admitting that without proper tools judging a map without playing on is near impossible, you guys are above that. Unlike us mortals you guys can just look at an overview picture for 5 seconds and see the imbalance come at you like Neo. I know you will most likely ignore this post. Just realize, in my eyes, you are that Russian judge that gives a 10 to his favorite skater and thinks he very objective and is 'defending his sport', when everybody on the TV can see that he is beyond help. On May 09 2014 09:23 Plexa wrote: I appreciate that the mapping community wants to try an innovate, but your innovations should be focusing on the map between the two players and not the first three bases. Play with fourths, play with the center, see what can and can't work there... but only extremely well executed maps which have made calculated decisions to compensate can break the standard three base mold. On May 09 2014 10:49 Plexa wrote: Yes. Opening everything in the editor takes an extremely long time. It is far quicker to use overviews to give an initial assessment of the maps. Moreover the editor doesn't really reveal more than a good overview does. Once we've decided on a shortlist of maps we think have potential they get extensively playtested. On May 09 2014 12:11 Plexa wrote: [] in general we're pretty good at understanding the ideas behind the map to a sufficient degree to decide whether or not we want those play tested or not. To have a quick turn around in the judging period this is just how things are. Remember there isn't just one person judging, you have an entire team of people judging and this is the most efficient way to do this. Moreover, this is standard practice for all the mapping contests i know of. On May 09 2014 11:10 Timmay wrote: If a certain strategy becomes too strong on a map, then the map ceases to produce interesting games. | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:22 And G wrote: I'm going to have to defer this one to the strategy team! But I believe the answer is at some point a line needed to be drawn in terms of what things they wanted to have properly tested which included some of the more interesting yet potentially broken maps. This set of judges felt that in this contest they would rather test other maps than Crusader. Given the extreme limitations on the turn around for this contest these concessions had to be made to give a fair assessment of the final candidates. Under different circumstances it probably would have made its way to testing and more in depth feedback could be given. With that said, it was borderline for a reason and those people who didn't like the map can speak up about that if they wish.So, since it hasn't been mentioned in the OP and none of the issues described there seem to apply to it in an obvious manner, I'm interested in hearing about what problems my map Crusader has. If the name doesn't ring a bell, here's the overview: + Show Spoiler + I see three points in the OP that might possibly apply to Crusader, but I was considering these when designing the map and I thought I had taken sufficient measures to make them non-issues: Nat2Nat distances On close spawns (NE vs SE) the nat2nat distance is 39 seconds. This is alleviated by that a) there's a watchtower overlooking both short attack routes, b) there's an overlord spot in front of the natural entrance, c) the natural choke is right at the base (I'm generally of the opinion that for nat2nat, base to choke is a more important distance than base to base), d) there's a second forward choke, e) when taking a third you expand away from your opponent, and f) it's a four player map (also see SidianTheBard's post which I agree with). Furthermore, this map revolves around the idea of providing six different types of games on one map, so you only get the NE vs SE matchup in one out of six games. And if the 39 seconds were still an issue, you could even disable NE vs SE spawns and still end up with five different combinations, unlike on axially symmetric maps where if you disable close positions you only have two combinations left. Blink Stalkers Lots of surface area at the backdoor third, but stalkers need to go a long way around to bounce between there and the natural. Also, the natural choke is super close to the base, so it becomes even less of a problem for Terran to defend blink play economically, right? And the Protoss main can easily be scouted with Reapers so you'll see it coming. Accessibility of thirds Is there a problem with Zerg being forced to take the backdoor third in half of the cardinal spawns? I thought this wasn't an issue because in those cases you expand away from your opponent, and an opponent attacking that base before the rocks are down would be out of position and vulnerable to runbys. So... I dunno, was the main backdoor the problem? Or the four gold bases? Also, I can see why Paradise Found didn't make it (especially the location of the thirds), but I'd like to hear whether there was also a particular problem with the main/nat setup (blink play?) since it is quite unusual and partly inspired by Into the Wilds. Thanks! Did you read this analysis? On May 09 2014 22:25 Big J wrote: Open space. Could you please explain what's the problem with open spaces, since you keep on saying and hinting that it's a problem, don't say why... Waystation is rather anti-Protoss (in both matchups). Alterzim is rather pro-Protoss (in both matchups). Neither has to do with the open space, but with base setups (3rd base on Waystation is so far away for P) and how bad SHs are on Alterzim. Also Frost is very open too. Actually what I was getting at is that they're both Blizzard maps >.> ... open space is related to how easy it is to move across the map and attack and whatnot. Most good maps do interesting things with what would otherwise be open space to promote interesting army movement or strategic decisions in which bases to take and so on. Open space just kinda does nothing, except make it difficult to move out as a non-zerg. On May 09 2014 22:33 lord_nibbler wrote: As a neutral observer of the SC2 map making scene (I created some BW maps in a past life), this post sadly confirmed much of the impressions I had: This scene is on figure skating level of 'judging', maybe even worse! Instead of humbleness, self proclaimed experts show bias and sell them as truths. You see, instead of admitting that without proper tools judging a map without playing on is near impossible, you guys are above that. Unlike us mortals you guys can just look at an overview picture for 5 seconds and see the imbalance come at you like Neo. I know you will most likely ignore this post. Just realize, in my eyes, you are that Russian judge that gives a 10 to his favorite skater and thinks he very objective and is 'defending his sport', when everybody on the TV can see that he is beyond help. Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start. Assuming you're talking about the use of overviews... Never once have I said that we're perfect; but in order to get things done in a timely fashion some concessions have to be made and one of those concessions is doing initial rounds of judging through overviews. You can speak to other top map makers who have run tournaments; doing the first round of cuts is relatively easy because there are obvious proportion problems and other obvious signs which can all be done through overviews. After that things get a little trickier with overviews but you can still do quite a bit -- things like assessing how much space there is for blink stalkers is something that can easily be done by looking at an overview (and then by drawing on previous maps we can determine an approximate strength of blink stalkers). Rinse and repeat this for a number of the things I have stated in the OP and you have yourself a set of candidates for intensive play testing. After play testing we can confidently make predictions about how games should play out on those maps and be sure that the maps chosen will be playable without major balance concerns. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:56 SatedSC2 wrote: If you can't FFE on a map then you also can't 1GFE on that map. The Protoss needs to be able to get a reasonable wall up by 5:30 if they want to play safe against Speedling all-ins and the like, and if that isn't possible then you basically cut out all standard openings currently used at the pro-level. If you make it so that the map doesn't have a reasonable choke at the natural then people would have to open 2 or 3 Gate Sentry Expand and that's just not viable in the current metagame (and that's coming from someone who opened 2 Gate Sentry Expand right up until the end of WoL). This is more or less it. Every game would be zerg playing standard and protoss playing at a disadvantage. There's no need for zerg to play any differently on these maps, but protoss has to make huge adjustments which put them behind. All zerg needs to do is scout properly (like they already have to do) and make units at the right times and they'll win. Protoss pushes will be later and weaker. These maps also make ZvZ difficult (can't wall the natural as easily, so it's hard to expand in that matchup), ZvT roach/baneling busts get stronger, and so on. In general, the wider the natural choke is, the stronger zerg aggression is, without buffing the other two races in any noticeable way. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:22 And G wrote: So, since it hasn't been mentioned in the OP and none of the issues described there seem to apply to it in an obvious manner, I'm interested in hearing about what problems my map Crusader has. If the name doesn't ring a bell, here's the overview: + Show Spoiler + I see three points in the OP that might possibly apply to Crusader, but I was considering these when designing the map and I thought I had taken sufficient measures to make them non-issues: Nat2Nat distances On close spawns (NE vs SE) the nat2nat distance is 39 seconds. This is alleviated by that a) there's a watchtower overlooking both short attack routes, b) there's an overlord spot in front of the natural entrance, c) the natural choke is right at the base (I'm generally of the opinion that for nat2nat, base to choke is a more important distance than base to base), d) there's a second forward choke, e) when taking a third you expand away from your opponent, and f) it's a four player map (also see SidianTheBard's post which I agree with). Furthermore, this map revolves around the idea of providing six different types of games on one map, so you only get the NE vs SE matchup in one out of six games. And if the 39 seconds were still an issue, you could even disable NE vs SE spawns and still end up with five different combinations, unlike on axially symmetric maps where if you disable close positions you only have two combinations left. Blink Stalkers Lots of surface area at the backdoor third, but stalkers need to go a long way around to bounce between there and the natural. Also, the natural choke is super close to the base, so it becomes even less of a problem for Terran to defend blink play economically, right? And the Protoss main can easily be scouted with Reapers so you'll see it coming. Accessibility of thirds Is there a problem with Zerg being forced to take the backdoor third in half of the cardinal spawns? I thought this wasn't an issue because in those cases you expand away from your opponent, and an opponent attacking that base before the rocks are down would be out of position and vulnerable to runbys. So... I dunno, was the main backdoor the problem? Or the four gold bases? Also, I can see why Paradise Found didn't make it (especially the location of the thirds), but I'd like to hear whether there was also a particular problem with the main/nat setup (blink play?) since it is quite unusual and partly inspired by Into the Wilds. Thanks! Did you read this analysis? Your map is cool and it does deal with the majority of imbalances. However, as a Protoss I want to only ever play on that map. Its too good for us. The chokes provide us with easy easy easy base progression with walloffs vs z. Same for terran vs zerg (mech and 4m). The amount of space you need to control at one time to be reasonably safe. The map appears to come out of early hots late wol - 2012 era approach. Its too safe and standard. The multiplicity of chokes and limited counter attack options make aggressive 2 or 3 base play too powerful. The lack of counter attack paths add to this. I really like the idea of the main nat and 4th/backdoor third positioning. Blink able cliffs that are strong in a very dedicated attack but weak in attacks that rely on bouncing from nat to main is awesome. It is easily the most elegant way to deal with blink and I REALLY like it. Sadly the rest of the map isn't what we were looking for and has no opportunity to push meta in anyway- nor are there interesting elements to play with in multi base play. However I think a dedicated blink play on this map would be fun to watch! Keep that corner base concept and work with it however soul train is going to smash the backdoor third vs Z. The one size ramp you come down to defend as Z mmmmmm tasty. Alternatively if I attack into the nat I have other ff options to help me. Also there is one thing I think is important to think of when pushing the meta. Cloud kingdom pushed the meta more than any other map. Daybreak helped us learn what is "standard" macro play and find safe limits. Cloud gave us a better map though. It had a third that was just easy enough to take as toss that it encouraged it but difficult enough - at the time - that it encouraged attacks on the third. Drop play and blink aggression were good on the map. The different attack paths provided counter options and the chokes made some bases more defensible while at the same time spreading the army. Cloud taught toss to try and sim city to limit attack paths so we could exert space control but we could never do so so well that we didn't need to worry about the walls or air aggression. Cloud kingdom followed the meta just enough to let us play what was standard at the time but offered enough options that new things could be explored or refined. It pushed what was possible by just enough. Some mapmakers try to push the boundaries too much and don't conform to the standard but make the standard either just a little harder or just a little less efficient. Cloud kingdom started as a very aggressive map but turned into a more macro oriented map because the aggression while strong was just less effective on 2 base than it was on 3. The map was amazing because it was almost standard. Almost - and it accounted for all the specific rules of its time - ffe as an option for example. This just standard enough concept is something really hard to nail and accomplish and its in my personal opinion what all mapmakers need to strive for. Slightly tougher thirds or difficult space control to secure a fifth are things that I think frost did well and that's why I like it. Its aost like a cloud kingdom in a way. When we first saw it we hated it but then grew to love it. | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On May 09 2014 09:23 Plexa wrote: Nat2Nat distances By now it should be well established that less than 40s for a nat2nat distance isn't going to work. I appreciate that with 4p maps that this is difficult (close spawns often end up breaking this rule), but you should be designing around this restriction. The reason why 40s is the minimum we'll accept (and even then, ideally its 43s+) is because the rush distance becomes too short making 2 base play stronger and making it more difficult to secure later bases. Remember: most attacks are going to travel from the natural to the natural or third to the natural so that is the effective attack distance -- the main2main distance is mostly for scouting purposes (unless you did a in-base natural, of course). How are you defining natural to natural distances? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:48 Plexa wrote: Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start. I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!" Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective. This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time. And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On May 10 2014 00:00 BronzeKnee wrote: I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!" Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective. This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time. And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility. For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps. And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough. And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner. | ||
| ||
