EPTIt really feels like we all sort of won already, doesn't it? Lots of good commentary, really. This has been a really big MotM I think.
Map of the Month #9 - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
It really feels like we all sort of won already, doesn't it? Lots of good commentary, really. This has been a really big MotM I think. | ||
|
Inside.Out
Canada569 Posts
also the gold @ derelict is waaaay too easy to take | ||
|
AaronJ
United States90 Posts
The other thing I wanted to say is that good tournament quality maps is hard. Starcraft is such a complex game there are so many little things in designing a map that can make a big difference in how game play works. Most people including myself don't have enough knowledge of the game and mapping to design a map that would be competitive in an MLG or GSL (but I'm not saying you can't learn and reach that level.) You shouldn't expect that just because your map looks good to you and was balanced in all of you test games its should immediately be in every tournament. There easily could be things that make a big difference that you overlook or something you don't know about that ends up being important in very high level play. Sorry for the grammar errors, my bad writing, jumping between thoughts, if I made any bad points, and for the self promotion in the middle. I will probably make a bunch of additions as more things pop into my mind too. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
AaronJ
United States90 Posts
On September 17 2011 14:04 Barrin wrote: This man gets it. More on this stuff soon! Thanks so much I probably will post again later when I have more time. I might also like start a blog or something. | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On September 17 2011 14:08 AaronJ wrote: Thanks so much I probably will post again later when I have more time. I might also like start a blog or something. I definitely agree, Aaron is completely right with what he said. I was considering saying exactly what you said at making maps to get into tournaments instead of actually enjoying making maps and playing them. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
For example, my maps Bel'Shir Walkway, TPW Antiga Prime, TPW Scars of Aiur, and TPW Ohana all had 2 common complaints altogether: 1) to STOP putting the mains in the top left and bottom right (lol a bad habit of mine). 2) to make the 4th/5th bases more easily accessible and not so close to the enemy's main. Out of every map criticism I've had over all my maps, i've taken these two core criticisms (that were the most commonly said) and currently I am working on a map and avoiding these two things. This is how you internally improve on your map-making skills. The other thing is that just because a master player says something is imbalanced does not mean you have to suddenly change it! I used to fall into this trap because I thought masters knew everything, but then the next few master players that tested my maps said it was perfectly fine. You will never become a better map-maker by giving yourself ideas. You must be open to harsh comments and real constructive feedback. | ||
|
LunaSaint
United Kingdom620 Posts
Apart from the fact I just plain love messing with a game's system and seeing what I can do with it, I love the challenge mapmaking provides. Finding a way to get something special out of a texture set, making a shape or design work out as something that's reasonably balanced, or finding a way to solve an imbalance without breaking the overall flavour or game flow of the map. I never enter a MotM expecting to Top5 (although I'll still love my maps in a way only a mother could), knowing that other people have spent more time, solved bigger problems and worked with partners and teammates to produce something really special. I'm just happy to see the detailed feedback that comes after a judging session, to see what I've done well at that month. I started off as a really bad mapper, but I'd like to think I've made a lot of progress. | ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
| ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On September 18 2011 04:59 Barrin wrote: I started writing this several days ago, but then I got the worst cold I've ever had (didn't even touch computer for a day and a half). That's also why my write-ups are late (posting today or tomorrow). If you are one of the people disappointed with MotM9, you are required to read this post before expressing anymore disappointment in this thread ^_^ (not really, but yeah). I want everyone to know that we are certainly listening to and understanding your concerns. I know full well the frustration of having a map you spent countless hours on being denied a MotM finalist position (which almost invariably leads to it being never used again). Identifying possible problems is a good thing... but at one point in this thread it moved past the “identifying possible problems” boundary and more into “complaining/whining”. Perhaps we should discuss potential solutions to the possible problems; maybe simply asking for further clarification (now and in the future, and I'm happy to say that some of you are doing/did so) instead of complaining and defaming. As an aside, there is this thing I like to call "mapmaking progression philosophy". I've been meaning to make a thread for it for a loong time, but it really is little more than this: I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A) improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B) taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map. Interestingly enough this same concept can be (and is) applied to "player progression philosophy" as well. It is a well known theory that given a long enough timeframe, the player who chooses to focus on early aggression/cheesing almost every game (strategy b) is going to eventually be an overall worse player than the person who focuses on improving their late-game mechanics and surviving the early game (strategy A). + Show Spoiler + (disclaimer: at least in mapmaking, Strategy A and B are not mutually exclusive (indeed it makes sense to do B while doing A); it is the degrees of focus on either one that I am addressing.) If you don't consider yourself very experienced in mapmaking (2+ years; yes, into the BW days), and if you're not learning a lot from almost every map you make, then you're probably doing it wrong (probably not receiving/comprehending enough feedback - put yourself out there - do not be afraid to be wrong, be afraid of being wrong and never realizing it). The first issue I wish to address is the idea that MotM tends to choose maps that are "standard". Well, what is standard exactly? Is there any single map we can point to and say "that's the standard!"? No. That doesn't make sense because there are many different categories of maps. However for some of these categories we do have at least one map to look to as a standard. For clarity, each of these categories has varying degrees of [# of bases], [# of spawn positions], [symmetry type], [map size], and if you wanna get down to it [difficulty of expanding to & holding natural], [difficulty of expanding to and holding third], [optional thirds], and [level of air space around map]... (you can go on for a long ass time categorizing differences IMO, but these are the true major ones). main categories:
sub categories:
------------ If you take all the possible combinations with just these major features, that's 37,908 different combinations for categories of maps (20,412 if you only count # of bases from 10 to 16)... these numbers double every time you add a variable with 2 possible values (and I could do that sensibly, with fairly major things like close air positions or backdoor into main, possibility of gold expansionl, whether or not there are XWT's, square or rectangle, and others). Well, you wouldn't really want a 2player, 10base map that's the size of Tal'Darim Altar. So most of those combinations don't really make sense. However, I would say that there's easily a few hundred that do, and of those maybe 50 or so that have been done fairly well (many, maybe most, haven't even been tried). So. There is a "standard" for some of these combinations. The standard for a medium-sized, 2-player, 10-base, rotational symmetry map with hard to take/hold natural, hard to take/hold third(s), 2 optional thirds, and low level of air space around the map is... + Show Spoiler + Xel'Naga Caverns How about the standard for a medium/large, 4(3) player, 14-base, reflection (insignificant shift) symmetry map with easy to take/hold natural, easy to take/hold thirds, (sorta) 2 optional thirds, and fairly low level of air space around the map? + Show Spoiler + Shakuras Plateau Or how about the standard for a medium, 4 player, 16-base, rotational symmetry map with fairly easy to take/hold natural, medium to take/hold thirds, 2 optional thirds, and a medium (scattered) level of air space around the map? + Show Spoiler + Artifice and some of the maps quite like it IMO, there aren't very many other standards that are "standard" on the same level as these (there are varying levels of "standard" IMO). Maybe Tal'darim Altar is a standard for huge maps because it's like the only one. There are two more that I will get to soon.* Now it gets really fun, because each CATEGORY has multiple STYLES. That is, category deals with spawn count, base count, symmetry type, map size, nat difficulty, third difficulty, optional thirds, level of air space around map, etc. Style gets even more specific (and ambiguous) and deals with terrain/cliff structures, openness distribution (and how it falls into pathing/army positioning gameplay), base vulnerabilities, and that sort of thing. I'm probably speaking for all the judges (and probably most progamers too) when I say we care more about varied style than varied category (which is why this "We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!" is rather misleading and deserves(d) clarification). + Show Spoiler + An important concept to understand here is something I harped on a lot almost a year ago. In fact I promised (probably more than once) that I would make a [D] thread on it, but I never did. The concept goes something like this: each dot of terrain means something and has the potential to have an affect on the game itself (even if it has miniscule potential to have an affect on the actual outcome of the game). Another thing to understand here is that things matter more in the early game. In other words, early game terrain has a bigger effect on more games played than late game terrain (probably all games, tbh). The earlier in the game it is used, the more it matters. A less than ideal example is Main Chokes in PvP. It doesn't really get any more early game than your main choke. If the main choke is flat instead of a ramp (los blockers and high ground next to it aside), all of the sudden the entire PvP matchup is broken because of one small piece of terrain. A simple overlord pod where there wasn't one can mean the difference between the zerg seeing an army coming across a path in time to move his army to defend the target base or not seeing it at all and half the workers and the hatchery at the target base dying. A little bit of air space behind a main can mean the difference between a full octodrop (or two) at the ~10 minute mark being picked off by stalkers or not. There are many timing attacks that can either be very effective or completely useless against an enemy natural ramp depending on if the ramp is 2 blocks wide or 3 blocks wide. A single tile of pathable terrain can mean the difference between whether or not a the mineral line (or gas geyser) at a nat or third base is siegable. There are countless more less significant examples. But all of these can have very significant affects on games... and we're only talking about very small pieces of terrain! ----- You guessed it: medium sized pieces of terrain can have an even bigger impact. Move a third base a whole 8x8 square (diagonally) and you can "tuck" almost "behind" your natural entrance (depending on positioning). This can mean the difference between very macro oriented games or games that tend to stay on 2-bases significantly longer. Give a gold base a tight choke instead of an open one and all of the sudden Terran reigns supreme. Make a main base small (23 CC)'s instead of medium (30 CC's) and T's and P's QQ all day that they don't have enough room to build, and arguably more importantly it becomes MUCH easier to scout (giving information that is acted upon instead of remaining unknown). There are hundreds (probably thousands) of examples like this, many of which we haven’t even found yet. Can you think of any two maps that have been in the ladder pool that have very similar categories but significantly different styles? Think for a minute; if you can't come up with something, you have no place to call overgrown and emerald jungle too similar to shakuras plateau. + Show Spoiler + Of course I am speaking of Shattered Temple and Metalopolis. Categorically wise, they are almost identical: Shattered Temple: 4(3) spawns 12 bases medium size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2+ optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map Metalopolis: 4(3) spawns 12 bases medium size reflection symmetry medium natural medium third(s) 2+ optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map Yet somehow they manage to have relatively different styles. This is even a suboptimal example of how drastically different styles can be (its easy to relate to though). *These two maps are indeed the "standard" for their categories. Alright, now let's take a close look at the two maps people are saying is too much like Shakuras. Overgrown + Show Spoiler + Shakuras (156x128): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2 optional thirds low air space around map Overgrown (158x137): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size* reflection symmetry easy natural hard third(s) 2 optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map ![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic44/a65c9cf919ba0aede2f956dc602b4b6a.gif) In the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras. The categories are almost the same, can't deny that. Aside from basic base layout, the style is actually quite different. Take a close look at the naturals. The differences actually have a significant effect on the early game, which in turn makes a profound effect on the mid and late game. Think about trying to take a third on shakuras, then think about trying to take a third on overgrown. That's right; it's a lot harder to do it on overgrown. One of the thirds is VERY open. The other third is kinda far away from the open third, which in combination with the openness of the other third, makes it hard to hold both of them. Unlike Shakuras, the third you take on overgrown kind of funnels you in to one of two (very different) expansion patterns. There is also a hell of a lot more pathing options on Overgrown than on Shakuras. The "central width" of Shakuras is very small in relation to it's size, which (if you ask any pro player) is one of it's biggest defining features. This is a huge point, but it's hard to explain it's profound impact on the mid-late and late game (comes with experience). Again, in the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras. However, it's almost as unlike Shakuras as it could possibly be while still being mostly like Shakuras. Emerald Jungle + Show Spoiler + Shakuras (156x128): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2 optional thirds low air space around map Emerald Jungle (158x152): 4(3) spawns 16 bases large size reflection symmetry medium natural easy third + hard third 2 optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map ![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic44/b4f963b2950ee7f4cb08a9b573e459bc.gif) The categories are in the same ballpark. Significantly different, however. Emerald Jungle is hardly even a rectangle (shakuras is VERY rectangular, part of why it has a small central width). Holy fuck the style is soooo different. I'm seriously about to noobslap anyone who thinks otherwise. TWICE if you have to look any farther than the basic base layout in combination with the pathing to see it. I dare you to show me why I'm wrong. You say they're too much like Shakuras? I say you look too much at the category, and not nearly enough at the style. While we're looking at specific maps, let's take a look at Tenarsis. Some of you are saying this map is too standard. Tell me, which "standardish" map does this map resemble...? Take your time. That's right. There is none (actually it does kinda remind me of my next still-private map >.<, but that's besides the point). What you really mean is that it uses a bunch of MINOR, non-unique map features and tries to put a new spin on them (and spinning it does). Quite frankly I've never seen a map with the same midgame layout as this one, or even close to it. The area outside of the natural is fairly unique (please prove otherwise). Someone specified that the fact that there is optional thirds is one reason why this map isn't unique. I've never seen an optional thirds layout quite like this one (especially considering the fairly small (not too small..) natural rush distances. I love how you can place your army at the gold and simultaneously soundly defend the two bases behind it (but leaving your natural adequately vulnerable). This isn't entirely new, but in the context of the whole map it is. And you see, that's the thing. It's not only about individual map features. It's also how those individual map features interact with the rest of the map... Everything in a game like SC2 is connected; you can't say you know everything about something without also knowing the entire context that it takes place in. Indeed, as the context (map) changes, so does the concept (feature). + Show Spoiler + This is how you can talk to someone about some concept in SC2 that you both can identify and understand, but the fact that you have more context to refer to means that they won't really understand it the same way you do. We run into this constantly in judge discussions. I personally run into this all the time when trying to explain things to people. And by the way, if it's recognition for your good work you seek, then it doesn't really help you if few other people can fully appreciate the depth of your work. I wont lie, this is actually a main reason why I used to be very vocal in this community... What was the point of making badass maps if I'm the only one who understands why they're badass? (disclaimer: I never actually made a badass map, but if I did...!) What I'm saying is that you can take old ""standard"" features and do something new and creative with them. This is not the only way to be creative, but it is a huge part of it. How ridiculous would it be if you made a map with only 100% new features anyway (if that's even possible)? (By the way there are sorta different levels of "features". So far I meant only individual features (example: double ramp main on scrap station). You can categorize them further and have a series of connected individual features (I will call these "structures"). You should always make sure that each individual feature actually fits in to the overall concept of a map (there's probably more overall concepts than individual features).) Nobody is claiming that Bardiche and/or Derelict are standard-ish (especially Bardiche), right? *raises ban hammer*loljk* Seriously though. They're not - at all. Unique != Good. I'll be honest. I am aware that there is more to the feeling of "standard" that I have yet to acknowledge in this post. There is something that is done quite properly in pretty much every non-blizzard map that made it to the bigger 1v1 tournaments. I can't speak for the rest of the judges, but personally I put A LOT of weight on this. Three words: Army. Positioning. Gameplay. Some of you probably remember my [D] Base Vulnerabilities thread. Army Positioning Gameplay is the other half of that story. I am definitely going to make a [D] thread on Army Positioning Gameplay soon enough (I've been thinking about it specifically for several months now, making sure I get it down). Army Positioning Gameplay is an extremely important concept at the highest of levels. Army Positioning Gameplay is akin to Micro; it is like Micro's bigger brother. It is not easy at all to make a map with very good Army Positioning Gameplay while simultaneously being very unique AND balanced. It's downright fucking hard, actually. It is an art. This topic deserves it's own thread (don't worry I'll make it), so I don't wanna get too detailed here. For now I think it's sufficient to say that two things in particular cause bad Army Positioning Gameplay. (1) Too much restriction in pathing. This is usually caused by multiple LONG cliffs or unpathable space (long as in no breaks). It can make engagements too predictable, and it can allow you to always engage exactly where you want in a defensive posture. Boring, lowers skill ceiling. (2) Too little restriction in pathing. For the most part, having every pathway and every base pathing-connected to every pathway and every base next to it is, you guessed it: boring. When you have too much freedom in pathing, you're not risking enough when you move your army around; you cannot be as easily be punished for your mistakes and in turn cannot as easily punish people for their mistakes. There must be suspense (that's a very basic way of putting it). Also, pathing restriction is one of your biggest tools for making your map unique and interesting. Of course, armies don't just run all around the map trying to find the most efficient choke points to engage in. Armies defend bases, and armies attack bases (and other armies). Mostly defend actually. Which means they usually must remain in reasonably close proximity to the base(s) they are trying to protect (unless they're attacking o.O). But the best place to defend your natural often shouldn't be the best place to defend both your natural and your third, etc. And it should occasionally make sense to move your army away from this position (for a variety of reasons). Many (if not most) of the maps submitted this month that are "unique" and "non-standard" have pretty sub-par Army Positioning Gameplay. IMO, at least. I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A) improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B) taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map. - Barrin  Thank you. | ||
|
Fearlezz
Croatia176 Posts
| ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
| ||
|
AaronJ
United States90 Posts
 ) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word) | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On September 18 2011 06:20 AaronJ wrote: Great post. The only thing I wanted to say about your's and monitor's post is that as a novice map mapmaker (when I tried map making) it was almost impossible to actually learn from my mistakes and improve next time.With very little information out there and sometimes no good feedback as there are very little people who actually truly understand mapping it is hard to actually learn from mistakes other than the most basic ones you had in your map. Its also very hard to test your map with high level players to see how it plays out and find imbalances that way. Finally I feel that posts in map threads are often unreliable since sometimes (and I have been guilty of this ) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word)Good idea! Unfortunately the strategy forum is more popular than the custom maps forum, but I suppose this could be on a smaller scale. | ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
On September 18 2011 04:59 Barrin wrote: I can't speak for the rest of the judges, but personally I put A LOT of weight on this. Three words: Army. Positioning. Gameplay. Some of you probably remember my [D] Base Vulnerabilities thread. Army Positioning Gameplay is the other half of that story. I am definitely going to make a [D] thread on Army Positioning Gameplay soon enough (I've been thinking about it specifically for several months now, making sure I get it down). Army Positioning Gameplay is an extremely important concept at the highest of levels. Army Positioning Gameplay is akin to Micro; it is like Micro's bigger brother. It is not easy at all to make a map with very good Army Positioning Gameplay while simultaneously being very unique AND balanced. It's downright fucking hard, actually. It is an art. This topic deserves it's own thread (don't worry I'll make it), so I don't wanna get too detailed here. For now I think it's sufficient to say that two things in particular cause bad Army Positioning Gameplay. (1) Too much restriction in pathing. This is usually caused by multiple LONG cliffs or unpathable space (long as in no breaks). It can make engagements too predictable, and it can allow you to always engage exactly where you want in a defensive posture. Boring, lowers skill ceiling. (2) Too little restriction in pathing. For the most part, having every pathway and every base pathing-connected to every pathway and every base next to it is, you guessed it: boring. When you have too much freedom in pathing, you're not risking enough when you move your army around; you cannot be as easily be punished for your mistakes and in turn cannot as easily punish people for their mistakes. There must be suspense (that's a very basic way of putting it). Also, pathing restriction is one of your biggest tools for making your map unique and interesting. Of course, armies don't just run all around the map trying to find the most efficient choke points to engage in. Armies defend bases, and armies attack bases (and other armies). Mostly defend actually. Which means they usually must remain in reasonably close proximity to the base(s) they are trying to protect (unless they're attacking o.O). But the best place to defend your natural often shouldn't be the best place to defend both your natural and your third, etc. And it should occasionally make sense to move your army away from this position (for a variety of reasons). - Barrin I dont really think I agree with this part. I mean as long as the map is balanced, I cant find a reason how can a map be bad because of too many paths or too few (aslong as the map isnt just a straight 1 path line obv.) I have never spectated or played a game a game and tought that it would be way less boring if there were less or more restriction in pathing. I really much see the pathing restriction as a map style or prefer. Could just be me not understanding and raging for nothing. Oh, btw, speaking of raging. Have you, iGork or who ever decides that shit, yet made the decisions about the specifcs of the next months map restrictions as frequently asked in this topic. Are we allowed to have custom color or propotions on doodaas? Are we allowed to mix the existing texture sets. Seriously, next MOTM should start in like 15 days. | ||
|
totalpigeon
United Kingdom162 Posts
On September 18 2011 06:20 AaronJ wrote: Great post. The only thing I wanted to say about your's and monitor's post is that as a novice map mapmaker (when I tried map making) it was almost impossible to actually learn from my mistakes and improve next time.With very little information out there and sometimes no good feedback as there are very little people who actually truly understand mapping it is hard to actually learn from mistakes other than the most basic ones you had in your map. Its also very hard to test your map with high level players to see how it plays out and find imbalances that way. Finally I feel that posts in map threads are often unreliable since sometimes (and I have been guilty of this ) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word)There is a stickied thread with links to guides in this subforum here, it's all great stuff. I also agree that blue posts would make a lot of sense here too. I'd also love to see the experienced mappers post in map threads more too, I didn't get a whole lot of love back when I put mine up, though I don't hold it against them for not doing it as a lot of them are pretty busy with stuff like motm and their own maps after all. | ||
| ||
