[Interview] Barrin - SC2 Map Making Theorist

Blue: Hey TL, this is BlueBoxSC, bringing you SC2 map maker Barrin! Barrin, before we begin, is there anything you'd like to say to introduce yourself?

Barrin: Hey everyone! I am Barrin; melee mapmaker and TL Banling. I am the author of the article "Breadth of Gameplay in SC2" that has sparked a movement towards maps with Fewer Resources per Base.

Blue: TL, if you've lived under a rock for the last month, check out his article here! [Breadth of Gameplay in SC2] After the interview, of course!

Barrin, let's cut straight to it - how do people get into map making?

Barrin: Most mapmakers start off with a love of creativity. We just like to make things, and honestly that's what why I personally keep doing it. :D A lot of mapmakers also have a desire to shape the way the game is played; making a positive impact on eSports is what most serious mapmakers strive for. As for myself, I was just curious young teenager who happened to open the SC1/BW editor sometime around 1999-2000. I was rather oblivious of professional gaming at the time: I loved making UMS maps.

Blue: So it's comparable to an art? Creativity and other things? How does a map maker improve?

Barrin: "Art" is definitely the best word I can think of to describe it. Taken as a whole, there is nothing truly scientific about mapmaking at all.

More than a mapmaker, I am a mapmaking theorist. I have been writing and publishing my thoughts about particular topics since release. In many cases, people feel that what I am saying is almost detached from the game, or any particular game. Mapmaking theory is basically a perceived general average and range of possibilities, with emphasis on those that are most likely. Your map could be played on a lot of games, and the possibilities are vast.

What I'm getting at is to become better at mapmaking, your best bet is to become very good at the game. And watch a LOT of high level games. You need to get a lot of EXPERIENCE.

Blue: With the SC2 editor, possibilities are endless. As a map maker (and renowned theorist), what specifically goes into creating competitive melee maps?

Barrin: A melee map can be broken up into two main parts: Layout (pathing grid) and Aesthetics. They require two completely different skillsets and in some cases are done by two different people.

You really don't need to go overboard with aesthetics. Ideally a map should be very pleasing to look at on high settings, but very crisp, clear, and simple on low settings. A hard balance to strike.

To make a layout, first you should have an extremely solid understanding of the game. If you need to force yourself to come up with a layout then I suggest taking a break from mapmaking for a while. I generally happen to have a specific structure I want to play with brewing in the back of my head for weeks, sometimes months.

I like to start with a piece of paper and fiddle around with that structure oriented in different ways with different size maps etc. and sorta "feel" them. I make it work less than half the time. From there it's about translating it into the editor, and (for me at least) revising it slightly many hundreds of times over days, weeks, sometimes months.

Some famous maps have been made in an evening. xD

Blue: I'll admit that I'm clueless with mapmaking. To me, the layout has always been scientific, while the aesthetics of a map have been where 'artsy' is allowed to shine. Is this true? Where does creativity surpass formulaic in map design?

Barrin: I will admit: there is a certain "proportions" theory, taught to me a while ago by my colleague and good friend monitor from the ESV mapmaking team. This theory essentially dictates that, given a certain "map concept" (a layout, in idea form), there is indeed a "sweet spot" where the map should be a certain size, every choke should be a specific width, etc. The "art" comes from the fact that there is no written or accepted doctrine for this "sweet spot". Even if there is a science or perfection to it, perfection is still in the eye of the beholder.

Blue: By that logic, it'd be impossible to create the "perfect map"? As a map theorist, what do you think goes into map balance and overall balance in the game? How does the current state of the game reflect the map making community?

Barrin: Each map fits into a sort of "category" depending on many important factors (2p, 3p, 4p? air positions? in-base natural? Rotational, mirror, shifted symmetry, gold bases, watch towers, rocks, many more). In a MotM [Map of the Month] a while ago this was pointed out, and it was accepted that there is well over 10,000 categories. Each category can have a certain flavor. I find this to be art in itself actually, very complicated; many many more possibilities.

That said, I do feel that it is possible to create a "perfect" map for a given category and specific flavor. There is a perfect Daybreak or Shakuras Plateau (and those might not be it). Whether or not people will agree on it is another question entirely.

Maps play an integral role in balancing the game. Blizzard stopped patching BW long before the gameplay stopped evolving (pretty sure it still hasn't). It was maps that kept race innovation in check, and in the end balanced. However, it is important to note that we do not try to achieve 50% win rates across the board for every map. 45-55% is highly acceptable. Map pools should avoid using a bunch of maps that disfavor a certain race, however.

Well, let’s be honest, most of the game revolves around ladder and the high end tournaments (GSL, MLG, Dreamhack, Homestory). MLG, Dreamhack, and Homestory (and most other tournaments with the particular exception of the ESV Korean Weakly) all piggyback off of GSL and Ladder. And GSL maps are usually made by GSL mapmakers, in Korea, who don't actively participate in what we refer to as the melee "mapmaking community" here on TL. Some of them know me, they know I luv them ^^

However, our luck has changed with the TL Mapmaking Contest and a few of our maps are finally being accepted into ladder and thus many other tournaments. Namely Cloud Kingdom and Korhal Compound which we should all know by now, and soon to be Ohana.

In short, we really haven't been making as big of an impact as we should be (IMO). It is so hard to get new maps accepted.

To relate this to FRB, perhaps there simply isn't that much need for us with 8m maps. When so much is concentrated on just the first few bases it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for potential variety. This makes us almost unnecessary (and largely why I feel I can’t continue making 8m maps seriously).

Blue: Whoa whoa whoa. Let's pretend we don't know what the "6m revolution" or "FRB" is. Can you explain the idea of that new style of map making/SC?

Barrin: Sure! FRB stands for "Fewer Resources per Base". And it means just that! Or at least, that's how we're going about it at least. What we're really targeting is resource collection rate; and we happen to be mostly affecting maximum resource collection rate when we reduce the mineral fields from 8 to 6. The main idea of FRB is that it encourages you to expand more often in order to secure collection rate needed for the high-tech max army that we so desperately crave. Expanding so often makes you more vulnerable, and since there is also more time before you can reach the "deathball" stage, there tends to be a lot more smaller engagements spread across the map. There's a large number of desirable nuances associated with this change, but that's the basics!

Blue: Before we close, could you please wrap up by sharing your opinion on the direction of map making in SC2? Do you look foresee a time where FRB is the norm?

Barrin: FRB is already creating quite a stir in the mapmaking community (this is not the first time I've created an idea that did this, if I do say so myself, ask them about Circle Syndrome the bane of macro maps). [Circle Syndrome]

The thing is that creating maps with 6m is just a lot more fun. You have a lot more room to play with.. focus is spread out over a much larger area. You have to do it yourself to get the idea I think, it is what it is. It's more fun :D

Will it become normal eventually? Yes.

I think Blizzard is smart enough to keep their game alive, and the idea of FRB is going to be implemented before SC2 dies (not that that's going to happen any time soon). Whether they choose to simply remove resource fields as I have, or use some other method to target resource collection rate (hopefully giving it a soft cap), either way I will be happy.

Think of the game Go. I'm pretty sure it started off on small playing fields likes 9x9 or so. When they got bored of that, they didn't simply discard the game and never play it again. No. They created a 15x15 board and it was a whole new game. This is a perfect analogy for what FRB is.

Blue: Finally, to end tonight's interview, what is the best thing that FRB offers both SC players and map makers?

Barrin: Let's not sugarcoat it: in terms of gameplay there was something that was lost from BW to SC2. SC2 is a different game, not a exactly direct successor. FRB is aimed at making it more of a direct successor.

A lot of people say that the best thing in terms of gameplay that SC2 has over BW is that mechanics do not play such a large role. In BW, it didn't matter how good your strategy was if you couldn't keep up with the production of your opponent (a task that was much more difficult in BW). With the introduction of mass unit selection, MBS, automine, autocast, etc, what you do is more about what you think and less about how you do it.

That said, the best thing about FRB for the players and spectators is that it preserves that great thing about SC2 (thoughts over mechanics) while simultaneously making it more intellectually satisfying by opening up many more opportunities in gameplay (and mapmaking potential!). All the while with SC2 units and beautiful SC2 graphics.

Blue: Thanks for the time Barrin. It was a real pleasure!