EPT[D] Map Features & The Word "Gimmick"
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
STS17
United States1817 Posts
For example, Banshees with Cloak are gimmicky because if you catch an opponent unprepared they can win the game outright but if they are prepared they won't be much more effective then say hellion harass. Gimmicks and Cheese are similar but different. For example, failing with something Gimmicky is not nearly as detrimental then failing with a cheese. | ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
For example, having a far away island with no resources for the sole purpose of hiding tech structures would be gimmicky because tech structures can be just as effectively hidden elsewhere on the map. Thus this "feature" is extraneous and gimmicky. Other examples where a feature can be considered a gimmick is when it leads to uninteresting gameplay. For example destructible rocks blocking everything on novice maps. This feature isn't useful since it creates uninteresting games by allowing players to turtle to their hearts content. This defeats the entire purpose of the map which is to provide an interesting game for the spectator and the players. Thus the feature is useless and therefore a gimmick. The key is to not go overboard. Say I want to create a UMS where the user is being chased and I want to make the experience really intense. I can go about this in several ways. I can add a timer, decrease health of the player, make the enemies stronger / faster, increase the length of the level ect... While adding a timer and making the enemies stronger might not be a bad idea making the enemies super fast while and adding a timer and making it sudden death mode will quickly drain the fun out of the scenario. At best map makers can make their map, test it out and hope the general public doesn't put their features under the gimmick umbrella. On November 25 2010 13:06 STS17 wrote: Gimmicks and Cheese are similar but different. For example, failing with something Gimmicky is not nearly as detrimental then failing with a cheese. Is there a "cheese continuum"? For example in the middle we have standard play and on one side rests fast expansions and on the other side rests cheese: FlashFE----------FE--------Standard Play-----------------------------Gimmick------------Cheese----4-Drone-Rush Drawn roughly to scale. | ||
|
Rosvall
Sweden122 Posts
One gimmicky thing would be if Terran could build a unit, let's call it the Odin. When you have that unit, you don't have to micro much any more. You don't have to care as much about strategy etc. This is an extreme example. An other example is if you have a strategy, let's say some sort of canon rush. It also devalues micro as well as devalues macro. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
| ||
|
infringement153
United States30 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On November 26 2010 00:57 Barrin wrote: Perhaps there are features that truly do only have one use, but I cannot think of any. An island that is able to shell an expansion only if a siege tank is on it. On November 26 2010 00:57 Barrin wrote: So I don't know about the rest of you, but the first 4 replies don't really seem to agree with each other entirely. Perhaps they are all right? I don't know... Do you guys agree with each other??? On that note... does anyone agree with me??? Or will I be... + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VSrnkiWaqSQ/TMdBQsCZScI/AAAAAAAAAZI/r7M0LAXkxW0/s1600/forever+alone+face.png) Hmmm interesting I did not think this silly meme was capable of spreading this far. You don't appear to be from reddit since there is no user there called barrin and you uploaded your image to a website that isn't imgur (or the more recent min.us) http://www.reddit.com/user/barrin Also I hate you for spreading that meme. General consensus seems to be: if people like it it's a feature, if they don't like it or if it is compleeetly redundant then it's a gimmick. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On November 26 2010 02:25 Barrin wrote: I'm sorry I don't understand  For what I think you mean I already explained why I don't agree o.OA siege tank that is 10 tiles away from a mineral patch on an island. Think lost temple but if ONLY siege tanks were able to exploit the cliff. It is all over the internet actually O.o Teamliquid is no exception; I've seen it here dozens of times. And I didn't upload it I linked from the first image on google images with that image. I always thought that TL Strategy / Map making was semi impervious to these. But websites that are are very rare, Hacker News and the Economist come to mind. Well I still love you FYI It's a "trollface" (and I'm not trolling at all btw it was just kinda funny IMO). It is in the same category of the other trollfaces. I think you should look at this map by prodiG (I'm sure you know who he is) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145473Just got proderp'd >.< While still rather ambiguous, I think I agree with that definition. Does anyone disagree with it? Just make good maps and the problem solves itself. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
I think people really need to start experimenting with more creative things like neutral creep tumors, and permanent force fields (they're passable by massive units and burrowed roaches). But for now, while the game is still being learned, simpler maps with fewer gimmicks are probably better. These gimmicks will become very important later on in the life of SC2 though, in prolonging the lifespan of the game. | ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On November 26 2010 05:03 TedJustice wrote: A lot of gimmicks eventually become standard map features. Imagine the first brood war map with a neutral command center or creep colony. That would seem like a gimmick to most, but then more and more maps started using them, and now the neutral buildings are standard in SC2, only they're called destructible rocks. Well I think there was only one with a neutral command center that could be infested. Maps mainly used Xel Naga towers when they needed destructible rocks. Medusa immediately comes to mind for having 10 of them stacked on top of each other. Naturally this made siege tanks and lurkers insanely good at taking the "rocks" out. On November 26 2010 05:03 TedJustice wrote: I think people really need to start experimenting with more creative things like neutral creep tumors, and permanent force fields (they're passable by massive units and burrowed roaches). But for now, while the game is still being learned, simpler maps with fewer gimmicks are probably better. These gimmicks will become very important later on in the life of SC2 though, in prolonging the lifespan of the game. If people needed a permanent force field why not just place a whole in the ground? It doesn't block vision, and doesn't cause pathing. The advantage force fields have over terrain is that they are slightly more flexible, but I don't think that gives it enough of an advantage to justify the pathing issues. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. examples of sc2 unit gimmick: Banshee cloak. The banshee itself is a very good flying AtG unit, upon scouting the banshee skilled opponents will have made preparations against the cloak and thus the cloak feature has little relevance. For zerg: the xel naga watchtowers are gimmicky. Overlords accomplish the exact same thing and so it holds little to no relevance to zerg untill it is occupied by an enemy terran or protoss. Their ranged units like siege tanks and collossii exploit the field of vision their race would not otherwise have. | ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On November 27 2010 14:07 Madkipz wrote: For zerg: the xel naga watchtowers are gimmicky. Overlords accomplish the exact same thing and so it holds little to no relevance to zerg untill it is occupied by an enemy terran or protoss. Their ranged units like siege tanks and collossii exploit the field of vision their race would not otherwise have. I would not say xel naga's are a gimmick for zerg. They provide a large area of vision where overlords are not needed. Using your overlords to spot around the map is dangerous because you can be supply capped when a push comes if they kill enough of them and every dead overlord results in less larva for drones. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On November 27 2010 14:14 G_Wen wrote: I would not say xel naga's are a gimmick for zerg. They provide a large area of vision where overlords are not needed. Using your overlords to spot around the map is dangerous because you can be supply capped when a push comes if they kill enough of them and every dead overlord results in less larva for drones. Essentially making either the watchtowers or the overlords redundant. Why do you think alot of people clump their overlords or restrict them to be around the main and watch for drops and drop creep on the expansion yet still have 10 leftover overlords? and the opponents wouldnt just magically find overlords you would be scouting the middle and his troop movements with zerglings using overlords for the exact same thing. Xel naga watchtowers takes away skill and supports long ranged siege units, essentially making terran unbreakable max range shelling artillery that dosnt even need spotting. Make Zergies sad. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 27 2010 13:33 Barrin wrote: I believe this is insightful and precisely correct. I wrote a huge post when this thread opened. Then I realized there were two threads, and moreover, I didn't think an essay was going to help the cause. Everyone was posting one-liners that covered what I was saying. While I think there is value in a well constructed lituny of the facts(TM), it would just look stupid in an already accomplished discussion. Because it hasn't yet stated explicitly: the problem of the original topic is chiefly linguistic. But it is not just a problem of language--the words we use shape everything about how we view the world and make judgements, especially when that is in a social context. It's not just that the meaning of gimmick is vague, it's that there is also vagueness in how people see the role of terrain, microscopically and overall. With the back and forth with G_Wen, it's clear you guys have very interchangeable ideas, but crucially some of them don't line up. This is because of innate misaligned ways in which you think about what and why terrain is. The disparities of your mental models is reflected in disparities in the language you use, but more importantly, it is in some ways based on the language you would use to express it. I'll limit the sophic angle though I say it's Barrin's fault for brining it up in the first place.  In any case, what is the takeaway for starcraft and mapmaking? Contention is a great opportunity for critical thinking. You must examine even the things you never question. The perception of gimmicks says a lot about how maps are being made, but it says a lot more about the way people think about starcraft. "Standard" is a shortcut. On November 27 2010 13:33 Barrin wrote: I believe this is insightful and precisely correct. | ||
| ||
