| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
warnull
United States280 Posts
I recommend starting a new thread, articulating your thoughts without the emotional baggage, and preferably including some of the background information missing from your original post (as pointed out by Catz). TLMC is key to the continued success of Starcraft 2, and it's important that we get it right. | ||
|
KillerSmile
Germany87 Posts
On July 12 2021 04:58 ROOTCatZ wrote: Of course pro players care about the maps going into the game they make a living from. Also important to note that the judge panel is not comprised entirely of Pro-players, and that guidelines provided by TL / the contest itself are heavily biased towards "standard" maps by default. To speak only for myself, I gave this feedback during the judging phase on the TLMC discord: https://imgur.com/a/pHgTU8Q TLMC admin agreed to a degree (Winter also agreed), but also emphasized that the guidelines were carried over from previous TLMCs with Blizzard devs at the helm. I've had my own criticisms of Blizzard devs policies, especially post David Kim. Having worked with them closely I believe that as a team, their relative inexperience and the game's seemingly inevitable path towards 'stability' (lack of budget and Blizzard's unwillingness to invest into the game / development further) always led them to make 'safer' choices when it came to balance and by extension things like maps, that was something I was always trying to off-set while consulting at Blizzard. Also important to note as I've said alluded to more than once in the Pylon show; pro players in this day and age are generally iterators by excellence. Specially because the game hasn't changed radically it constantly rewards those who grind and do the same thing over and over vs other design alternatives seen in most games today that heavily reward adaptation and creativity because their games actively change radically, Dota and TeamFight Tactics come to mind for me, as I love both of those games also. This is a byproduct of the design philosophy (this time stemming from David Kim) to trend towards mastery and can be tracked back to unavoidable pitfalls like the very nature of StarCraft 2's economic model as a game (originally boxed product) vs self-sustaining / renewing f2p with in-game sales / content as a the primary driver, which offers devs the ability to continue to reliably work on the game and make active / big change. Tim Morten / LOTV did good to try and turn things around in the 'right' direction and keep things afloat, at least from my perspective, but it's difficult to change the foundations and re-wire people's perception of a then 7-or-so(?) year old game. Regardless of all this, it's important to note that the invited Judging panel was comprised of 3 Pro players, 2 casters and 2 streamers, rather than something like all pro players as it's soft implied here. Some pro players may have actively tried to vote down 4 player maps and creative maps, but personally, and after this discussion above on grading criteria - I tended to grade creative maps that seemed fun to play and my favorite 4 player maps higher than the great majority of "standard" maps. I think I would've done the same thing in my time as a pro. All to the point that while this post seems well intentioned it's not really giving a very comprehensive picture of what's going on behind the scenes for the contest. It's not so grim or as black and white as op makes it seem and I think everyone is doing the best that they can to push their own idea of what game / ecosystem they want to inhabit; at this, I think TL / admins did a good job of allowing diverse opinions to influence the map contest this time around. I greatly appreciate this piece of insight into the process and that you recognise the flaws of incentivising voting for "tried(or should I say tired) and true" map archetypes. I feel with more feedback and reasoning bridging the gap between players and mapmakers this post could have been avoided. - The judges not being forced to read the description provided by the mapmaker is unacceptable. - The judges not having to provide at least a handful of comments for maps they look at that can find their way back to the mapmaker is a massive missed opportunity to educate especially newer mapmakers. | ||
|
warnull
United States280 Posts
On July 12 2021 06:58 KillerSmile wrote: I greatly appreciate this piece of insight into the process and that you recognise the flaws of incentivising voting for "tried(or should I say tired) and true" map archetypes. I feel with more feedback and reasoning bridging the gap between players and mapmakers this post could have been avoided. - The judges not being forced to read the description provided by the mapmaker is unacceptable. - The judges not having to provide at least a handful of comments for maps they look at that can find their way back to the mapmaker is a massive missed opportunity to educate especially newer mapmakers. TLMC is not intended as a way to give feedback to the map makers. It happens once or twice per year, and that is too long of a time frame for mapmakers to iterate on. Week-long workshops between mapmakers and pro players/judges are a better way of incorporating feedback. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15967 Posts
Sure for spectactors and Gold league heroes it's "cool" and "interesting" but I don't think we should design the game for those people over the people who invest their life into the game. | ||
|
KillerSmile
Germany87 Posts
On July 12 2021 07:11 warnull wrote: TLMC is not intended as a way to give feedback to the map makers. It happens once or twice per year, and that is too long of a time frame for mapmakers to iterate on. Week-long workshops between mapmakers and pro players/judges are a better way of incorporating feedback. I've heard that sorry excuse before. And it's just that. I do not care for the initial intention of the contest. So the contest gets to pick the maps they want and all the unsuccessful mappers get what exactly? Not even a clammy handshake, just a "better luck next time". "What aspect of my map made it unsuitable for competitive play?" - "we'll tell you in a few weeks when nobody cares anymore because the contest is over and the pro players no longer remember even having looked at your map and most likely will ignore any approach to give feedback" I think it's high time to rethink the "intentions" of the contest in this regard if you don't want your mapmakers to be frustrated to the point of making justified threads like this one. It's very hard to stay motivated to compete in something that feels like throwing darts at a wall blindfolded and not even get told afterwards where the dartboard was or if the throws were even close. Apparently I'm pretty good at dart throwing with 2 finalists, but are my maps actually good or was I just lucky with my dartboardguessing? | ||
hjpalpha
Germany339 Posts
On July 12 2021 07:11 warnull wrote: TLMC is not intended as a way to give feedback to the map makers. It happens once or twice per year, and that is too long of a time frame for mapmakers to iterate on. Week-long workshops between mapmakers and pro players/judges are a better way of incorporating feedback. Maybe the middle ground could be good. Like split the vote into several subscores. Each from 5 to 0 points. Such subscores could be given for design, balance / competitive fairness, bugs (and maybe more). Judges do not have to give every subscore, so e.g. if a map is extremely bad due to balance the bugs subscore would be omitted because irrelevant. Or e.g. if they just do not have an opinion about the design. If a subscore is below 2 (or maybe 3) a reason could be added at he judges discretion. If then the results would be made available to the map makers (or even public) this would work as a good feedback and you get improved transparency. (Even without the reasons the map maker at least gets a bit of feedback as to which categories were responsible for his worse score.) Of course that keeps the issue that between submission and results (and feedbacks) quite some time passes. Optimal would be if mappers asked pros for their opinions directly. I know that at least several of them reply to such requests on their discord servers and point out problems they see. (Which btw has happened only 3 times in total during the last year on the discord servers i am on ...) | ||
|
TaKeTV
Germany1199 Posts
Not saying the system isn't flawed but certainly not only judges are to blame | ||
|
hjpalpha
Germany339 Posts
On July 12 2021 07:31 KillerSmile wrote: So the contest gets to pick the maps they want and all the unsuccessful mappers get what exactly? Not even a clammy handshake, just a "better luck next time". That is in general how voluntary stuff works. Do you think Liquipedia contributors get anything out of editing hours and hours every week? What we get is the satisfaction to help the community, document the (competitive) history of the game, the fun wile editing (be it writing lua modules, templates, creating player/team/tournament (and even mapmaker) pages, updating scores, ...) and of course the cool community we have on the Liquipedia discord (across the games/wikis). You on the other hand even have a contest with prize money. Yeah there for sure is room for improvement, but this crying about everything the whole time (and bashing players/judges while at it) is annoying af in my opinion. | ||
|
hjpalpha
Germany339 Posts
On July 12 2021 08:02 TaKeTV wrote: Without reading everything the feedback forever has been 'please dont design 4 player maps' . 4 player maps do not work for so many reasons. Once again I am casting a tournament with 4 player maps. Obviously players will not bother to take a deeper look. Not saying the system isn't flawed but certainly not only judges are to blame Pros even gave somewhat high points for some rare 4 player maps. Most 4 player maps are pretty bad but every once in a while there is the one out of thousand 4player map which is actually okay ...  | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On July 12 2021 08:02 TaKeTV wrote: Without reading everything the feedback forever has been 'please dont design 4 player maps' . 4 player maps do not work for so many reasons. Once again I am casting a tournament with 4 player maps. Obviously players will not bother to take a deeper look. Not saying the system isn't flawed but certainly not only judges are to blame The contest rules specified that there were going to be at least 4 multi-spawn finalists. Lots of mapmakers don't think 4p maps are a good idea either - but knowing that several of them were guaranteed to be selected no matter what, everyone involved (mappers and judges) should do their part to make sure the ones chosen suck as little as possible, instead of just mentally checking out and saying "they all suck anyway so why bother". | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On July 12 2021 08:13 hjpalpha wrote: Pros even gave somewhat high points for some rare 4 player maps. Most 4 player maps are pretty bad but every once in a while there is the one out of thousand 4player map which is actually okay ... Yeah he did give a good score to Tidehunter which coincidentally is a map with loads of airspace and where zerg legitimately can't take a third when spawning counter-clockwise to terran. I wonder why our very objective terran judge liked that particular 4p map. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 12 2021 08:02 TaKeTV wrote: Without reading everything the feedback forever has been 'please dont design 4 player maps' . 4 player maps do not work for so many reasons. Once again I am casting a tournament with 4 player maps. Obviously players will not bother to take a deeper look. Not saying the system isn't flawed but certainly not only judges are to blame The issue here IMO is that SC2 has so many restrictions on maps that making more spawns makes the map more... variable. Otherwise we would end with clones. Don't get me wrong, I hate 4-player maps in LOTV and didn't like them in WOL/HOTS, but I can see why they exist considering the other required restrictions. | ||
|
Legan
Finland422 Posts
For context of how serious the situation is, 5 to 10 map makers have either directly said or implied that they may leave if things don’t change. These map makers are the ones that make good solid maps that can easily compete for finalists. They are also the ones that can most likely innovate with solid implementation. Because they have been active longer, they are also more likely to use all of their submission slots compared to newcomers that have just started because of the contest. With 5 slots per submitter this means about 25-50 maps out of all ~150-170 maps submitted to the contest are from these map makers. These map makers also don’t just make maps but also give feedback to newcomers. Check the Work In Progress Melee Maps thread to see how active ZigguratOfUr has been in giving feedback to beginners over the years. Also I’m pretty sure that most of the new finalists can tell how they have gotten a lot of feedback from older map makers in the map maker discord. On a brighter side of things possible solutions have also been discussed in the map maker discord. For example, the idea that pro players should judge only standard and macro categories, and other judges would judge freestyle, multi-spawn and rush categories, has come up multiple times. | ||
|
TaKeTV
Germany1199 Posts
On July 12 2021 08:28 deacon.frost wrote: The issue here IMO is that SC2 has so many restrictions on maps that making more spawns makes the map more... variable. Otherwise we would end with clones. Don't get me wrong, I hate 4-player maps in LOTV and didn't like them in WOL/HOTS, but I can see why they exist considering the other required restrictions. I agree with you. There are a lot of aspects of why 4 player maps most of the time don't work. Starcraft 2 is faster , especially in LOTV. Different spawn enable different strategies which isn't bad but sometimes come with insane balance issues. Banning spawns usually results in the map still being too big. There's just so much stuff. I can absolutely see your point in seeing clones becoming an issue but - this is personal opinion and not neutral - I'd rather see clones than maps that could make or break a game based on spawns. Edit: a bit unrelated but I wanna try to push SAHSC to 9 or 11 maps as pool too for example. That would allow some strategic depth and more choices. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17676 Posts
do map makers have an automated test suite? I could start working on one as an extension mod and I'd share it on github, but it would be really tough to do many useful tests, people who have experience writing SC2 AIs could help any interest in this? | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 12 2021 08:33 TaKeTV wrote: I agree with you. There are a lot of aspects of why 4 player maps most of the time don't work. Starcraft 2 is faster , especially in LOTV. Different spawn enable different strategies which isn't bad but sometimes come with insane balance issues. Banning spawns usually results in the map still being too big. There's just so much stuff. I can absolutely see your point in seeing clones becoming an issue but - this is personal opinion and not neutral - I'd rather see clones than maps that could make or break a game based on spawns. Edit: a bit unrelated but I wanna try to push SAHSC to 9 or 11 maps as pool too for example. That would allow some strategic depth and more choices. I would love to see to having some restrictions relieved. Not for all the maps, but for some. And having more maps. e.g. having 11 maps, giving more vetoes on ladder. 2 Terran maps, 2 Zerg maps, 2 Protoss maps and 5 balanced/neutral maps. Zerg map = open and easy third(e.g.), hard to wall natural, big ramp to main, or no ramp to main at all. And so on for other races/maps. This way players can veto the racial maps until BO7 without issues  Or they can surprise. And I am not talking Protoss map - 55 % win rate. No, something like 70 % winrate because the map is bonkers. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2103 Posts
But I think the real solution is to simply offer a large variety of maps and let players veto through them (in tournament / online). This would also allow for variety between matchups, where some maps are well-liked by Terran and Protoss, but not Zerg, and so TvP, TvT, PvP occur on the map, but never TvZ, PvZ. In addition, by offering enough options, you allow players to create interesting builds for maps that might be unconventional. I think there's a lot of potential strategy here, and reminds me more of what we used to see from BW Proleague, where some players prep a very specific build for an odd map. | ||
|
Wardi
England897 Posts
I think it's super apparent in the four player maps we have in the TLMC - I absolutely refuse to believe there were no better alternatives than some of the finalists for four players. Multiple maps have severe issues with taking third bases on close spawns, it's one of the core issues of four player maps and to have some that haven't addressed this at all as finalists just feels like a way to doom any chance of getting love for an actual good four player map in the future. Maybe less submissions per map maker or something? A system to phase out some maps before it goes to final judging? I don't know what the solution is, but I think there are some very good maps that miss out on the finalists every time and it's sad that great maps don't even get a chance. | ||
|
Timmay
United States112 Posts
On July 12 2021 00:39 CicadaSC wrote: His opinion definitely matters, pro opinions matter, this is an age old question and the community has come to the consensus that starcraft is simply a game that needs to be balanced around pro play. The game should be balanced around pro play, but that doesn't mean the pro judges are good at guessing balance (look at the statistics in the original post). On July 12 2021 01:53 Poopi wrote: If it’s HeroMarine I kinda trust his judgement, the other pros probably used similar heuristics but just didn’t talk about it openly. And isn’t it obvious that pros from different races will try to have good maps for their race? Hence why ideally you have the same amount of T/Z/P pros voting. Different judges treat the process differently. Some try a good faith attempt at picking the best maps for ladder. Others clearly favor their own play-style. If the later leverages their scores enough, they get disproportionate influence in the final results. Example: Judge A likes extra airspace, but Judge B does not. If A penalizes a map 2 points for a lack of airspace, but B only deducts half a point, the map pool will be tilted heavily in favor of A. On July 12 2021 03:08 hjpalpha wrote: E.g. for Misophist it certainly has lots of issues that make it pretty bad for terran (the missing airspace being one of many here), maybe it was just the one reason that the player wanted to single out? Airspace isn't required for the map to be balanced, especially for smaller maps. On July 12 2021 03:12 hjpalpha wrote: (but i think the map wouldn't have gotten a good score either way, it has several other issues) No one is saying the map should have been a finalist, but it's clearly better than a 1. On July 12 2021 03:14 hjpalpha wrote: I would even go one step further and would let them play a tournament on ALL submitted maps. You can see from the vetoes and statistics which are good and which are not. In addition you would get additional input from the players that played on them. After that let the judges (INCLUDING PROS!!!) have a look into it and decide their scores. I would love to see games on every map, but the logistics aren't there. We don't have the money and support to get that many games on every map. Wardi's last TLMC tournament had 142 games, enough to get some exposure to the finalists, but not enough for even one game on all the submissions. On July 12 2021 04:49 hjpalpha wrote: [*] Imo if maps are clearly bad at a first glance it is a waste of time to look into them further, concentrating on the better ones and giving them more attention seems the better way to me. If you see clear imbalanced spots on the overview image already it is a bad map hence no further looking into it is necessary. Like if you see a map where everything is open af, no chokes, easy to secure gold, overlord spots everywhere, no reaper ramp, no air spaces behind bases it clearly is a bad map, because it is unbalanced AF (another example example: you have extreme short rush distance, lots of chokes, op liberator spots, .. is bad too, because it too is imbalanced AF) Making balanced maps requires making smart tradeoffs. Some maps are clearly bad, but some of the features you mentioned can be compensated for in a good map. As I mentioned before, airspace should not be treated as a requirement for standard maps. On July 12 2021 04:54 Poopi wrote: I agree though that it sucks for map makers if the process is not transparent, maybe reviewers / judge should write meaningful 3-4 lines for each map with arguments? This would be an increase on the burden of judges, and I'm not convinced it's worth doing compared to other changes mentioned in this thread. On July 12 2021 04:58 NewSunshine wrote: There's no other perspective, and there seems to be no allowance for any map that might offend anyone or try something genuinely different. This is my biggest issue with player judging. We're not getting the best maps, the most creative maps, or the most balanced maps. We're getting the least offensive maps, based on a cursory glance at overview images. On July 12 2021 06:05 hjpalpha wrote: So should i remove the map maker pages on LP now? ... Please, don't take away my LP page! On July 12 2021 07:15 Charoisaur wrote: Not only pros want to play on standard maps, I for my part don't want to play on a new Secret Spring ever again. Sure for spectactors and Gold league heroes it's "cool" and "interesting" but I don't think we should design the game for those people over the people who invest their life into the game. Secret Spring is a Blizzard map. No one asked for it, and no one wanted it. On July 12 2021 08:42 Wardi wrote: I think it's super apparent in the four player maps we have in the TLMC - I absolutely refuse to believe there were no better alternatives than some of the finalists for four players. Multiple maps have severe issues with taking third bases on close spawns, it's one of the core issues of four player maps and to have some that haven't addressed this at all as finalists just feels like a way to doom any chance of getting love for an actual good four player map in the future. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9b0ScW0.png) | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
These artists who keep our game going have no horse in the race of attempting to put a thumb on balance, in fact mapmakers are usually held in highest esteem for creating maps that are balanced or offer unique gameplay. It's shocking to me that there aren't accomplished mapmakers involved in judging. Edit: Honestly having spent so much time on Reddit, I'm frustrated I can't upvote or down-vote posts. I think the status quo is unacceptable long-term and it will harm the game if we keep seeing standard and unexciting maps. Pros have their vetoes and I want to see more Golden Walls, in the world - period. And I'm willing to pay for it, if I have to. And I think others likely agree with me. If I can't vote with upvotes, I'll vote with my eyeballs and with my wallet if I need to. Let the mapmakers dazzle us, they're an arguably under-tapped creative resource and since Blizzard isn't keeping the game dynamic anymore, they're the lone resource left to give this game periodic jolts of adrenaline. | ||
| ||
|
|
SC Evo League
TaeJa vs Cure
Rogue vs threepoint
ByuN vs Creator
MaNa vs Classic
Maestros of the Game
ShoWTimE vs Cham
GuMiho vs Ryung
Zoun vs Spirit
Rogue vs MaNa
[BSL 2025] Weekly
SC Evo League
Maestros of the Game
SHIN vs Creator
Astrea vs Lambo
Bunny vs SKillous
HeRoMaRinE vs TriGGeR
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Sziky
BSL Team Wars
Team Dewalt vs Team Sziky
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs BeSt
Snow vs Light
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
