Hey everyone. With the 1v1 portion of TLMC#2 drawing to an end, I thought I'd give my thoughts on how the contest went and on mapping as a whole. For those of you who don't know who I am, I was one of the four judges for TLMC#2. I also led TL Strategy in testing the finalists and wrote this analysis of the final 9 maps. During testing, we relayed suggestions and balance concerns to the finalist mappers and worked closely with them as they touched up their maps in preparation for the TLOpen. I also got about 10 PMs asking for feedback on why their maps didn't make it into the finalists and look a deeper look into these maps. With this experience behind me, I feel like I have a much better understanding of mappers, the mapping community, and maps in general. I think I have a very good understanding of the common pitfalls of mapmakers and what it takes to succeed. Hopefully, the following will help out some aspiring mappers for the next contest and give some insight on how to construct a winning map.
Aesthetics The first and most obvious point I want to highlight is that aesthetics mean so much. Out of all the maps that were submitted, about half of them could be thrown out immediately because of aesthetics. There were also a few maps that were in the range of being considered for finalists, but were edged out by maps that had better aesthetics. Not only do aesthetics make the map look better, they also show that you put a lot of work into the map. The nine finalists all had excellent aesthetics and I would argue that the top three that eventually won were among the best of the finalists in this category as well.
Who's Judging? The four judges consisted of one mapper(Ragoo), two professional players(Morrow and TLO), and me. I'll tell you now that because of my background as both a player and analyst, I judge with the same mindset of professional player. What I've learned throughout the whole experience is that players and mappers will judge maps completely differently. Mappers focus more on the big picture; they like new and interesting concepts that stray far from the norms. Players have to actually play on the maps and focus on play-ability and balance. Mappers and players also see differences in what is considered "interesting". The best example I can give is Ravage; a mapper might see that map as a Ohana or Belshir Vestige clone, but players picked up on the little differences in the map that made it play both differently and interestingly. More on this later. After speaking with Ironman, I think one of the reasons he has such success in these contests is that he understands the differences between mappers and professional players. The lesson here is to cater to your judges as because they're mostly players, they'll have different focuses than the average mapper.
How do I judge? Here's some more perspective on how I personally judge. I imagine most of the other player-judges went through this process as well. As with any judge, I first scan the map, noticing any key features and the overall aesthetics. Then, I play out each matchup and a variety of scenarios in each matchup in my head, noticing any peculiarities. Negative points for anything that would be problematic and imbalanced. More negative points for anything that's problematic and not easily fixable. Bonus points for "interesting" features that change how a matchup is played out without making the map imbalanced. In terms of balance, here is a sample of the list of things I consider when judging:
Rush distance
How effective are roach ling or roach baneling attacks vs Terran from 1/2/3 bases?
Are there any special precautions when FFEing?
How easy is it for P to take a third vs Z?
How easy is it for Z to defend a third vs P?
How much air space is there for mutalisks to bounce around?
In how many areas can blink stalkers blink into the main?
How easy is it to bounce back between main/third to defend drops?
Proxy stargate/starport locations
Proxy barracks/gateway locations
How much map control do xelnaga towers give?
How do ledges between main and natural help in defending aggression?
Creep spread vs Terran
Creep spread vs Protoss
What are different expansion patterns possible/probably in each match-up?
How easy is it for Protoss to secure four bases?
How easy is it for three base Protoss pushes against Zerg?
How easy are three base Terran pushes against Zerg/Protoss?
Are Nexus cannons in range of commonly attacked areas?
Terran sim against Zerg in natural/third
Protoss sim against Zerg in third
Reaper pathing in main/natural
Overlord placements
Gas placement in natural for overlord sight
Main size
Blink stalker all-in strength
Drop strength vs three base Protoss
Attacker ability to bounce back between locations vs defender space to cover
This just gives you an small idea of the amount of balance-related things there is to look for. It would take a while to explain each and a lot of experience to accurately judge each point. If I have time someday, I'll expand on this. In the meantime, here are the ones that cause the biggest problems in my experience:
Rush distance: As a general rule, have the n2n distance between 42-55 seconds. Problem maps: Strangewood and Korpolu
Blink stalker all-ins vs Terran: Don't allow too much surface area to blink into the main. Problem maps: Electric Circuit, Yeonsu
Ability for players, especially Protoss, to hold a third: One of the most common problems. Have it be reasonably easy to both attack and defend a Protoss on three bases. Many many maps got negative points for either having a too easily defendable or too easily attackable first three bases. All the finalists were pretty good with this.
Doom drops strength:Protoss have to be able to somewhat easily defend three bases from doom drops. It's hard to explain without a picture, but see the first version of Khalim's Will for an example. Basically, just don't put the first three bases in a circle.
Overall, it's a lot of stuff to go over and I suggest mappers get professional opinions on the balance of their maps whenever possible.
Additional Tips
Use your space: Think about how an average game on your map will play out. Is there space that will almost never be used? I've noticed that this mostly occurs in mirrored maps if all bases are on one side of the map. Sorry to put a map on the spot, but Habitation Station is a good example.
Make sure each expansion is viable: Similar to the above point, many expansions are just too out of the way for players to take. Also, often times expansions directly in the middle of the map aren't viable.
Give players choices in expansions: Allow for multiple possible thirds or fourths. This adds a dynamic nature to the map and allows for differentiation of games on your map. For example, Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak offer different fourths. Whirlwind and Frost offer different thirds.
Make sure you map is cohesive: Don't just throw in cool features for the sake of adding in cool features. Make sure your map flows together as a whole.
Thoughts on all the Finalists Here's just my personal thoughts on all the finalists. This will include all the problems we found with each map during testing. Together, I believe it's a very revealing look at common pitfall with maps. For reference, here are the before and after versions of the maps.
Insidious One of the only two maps we didn't suggest changes on. During testing, we found that the thirds were rather hard to take. We eventually concluded that these thirds were borderline acceptable and didn't ask for any changes. However, one of the complaints that I kept hearing by players during the TLOpen was exactly this: thirds were too hard. I suspect this is one of the reasons it scored last in the pro vote. I suspect that it also didn't help that it had a very similar map(Ravage) to compete with. Finally, some people just thought the map was too dark.
Khalim's Will This was actually my favorite map after the changes had been implemented. During testing we found three problems:
It was too easy for Terran to bounce back and forth between the natural and third with doom drops.
It was too difficult to secure a fourth. That is, the layout of the fourth was unwieldy.
It was too easy to attack an opposing player's fourth. That is, the rush distance from your third to the opponent's fourth was too short.
All of these problems were fixed with what I thought was an elegant solution. The main and natural were moved and shrunk so that the "fourth" could be redesigned. This allowed for generally much easier defense of this base and even allowed players, especially Protoss players, to take that base as a third. (This alleviated the doom drop problem.) I liked this new map because it gave so many choices for expansions paths and, at the same time, had a lot of small but cool features that could be "abused".
Electric Circuit This map was one of my top picks during the initial stage of judging. However, during testing, it turned out to be a real pain to balance. To be honest, I was very glad this map didn't make into the top three, because it still had a lot of problems. The biggest problem were blink stalker all-ins against Terran specifically. There was just so much freedom for these blink stalkers and so much surface area for the Terran to defend. Though we did our best to fix these issues, we couldn't come up with a very elegant solution together and I suspect there still are problems on this map. In addition, I can see Protoss all-ins being very strong on this map against Zerg, especially because of the narrow choke in the backdoor.
Strangewood I thought this was a very well-made map and the only real problem we saw was that close position rush distances were too short (Think less than Antiga close pos). Samro, the mapmaker, intended this to be a feature, that you would have vastly different types of games depending on rush distance. To help alleviate some of these close rush distance problems, rocks were added in but many of them felt unnatural and just "a fix" instead of a natural feature of the map. In later versions, these were smoothed out more. Overall, I don't think the concept of such varying rush distances worked out as many voters were turned off by both this and the shorter distances afforded by close positions.
Keru This was another map with a lot of cool features. The most glaringly obvious at first was the low ground main introduced in the original version. I asked for a lot of feedback from high level players and pro and though their answers were mixed, we eventually decided that it wasn't worth it to potentially hurt the map by leaving the low ground in. Besides, the map had plenty of other positive qualities and features going for it. The overall concept of the map didn't depend on the low ground main, and in the end, we felt it was an unnecessary feature.
Another change was that we felt the main was initially slightly too big.
I heard a lot of positive things about this map during testing, playing, and voting and I think it could have been a real winner with some minor adjustments. Unfortunately, many felt that the thirds were slightly too hard to take and this probably contributed to this map just barely not making it.
Koprulu Ah, the Outsider map. I loved that an Outsider map was introduced to the map pool and it was initially one of my top picks. It wasn't as beautiful as some of the other maps and the middle was quite boring, but the Outsider concept really drew me in. Unfortunately, we found some glaring issues during testing that really soured me on this map:
Rotational imbalance: Rotational imbalance isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I felt that it was extremely significant in this map.
Rush distance: This is heavily influenced by rotational imbalance. In some positions, certain players would be forced to expand in certain ways. For example, Zergs spawning clockwise from Terrans would be forced to take the non-backdoor natural. This created situations where the rush distance was just absurdly short. I'd like to note that these short rush distances were partly caused by that that the entire outside perimeter of the map didn't factor into the rush distance. Thus, we were actually working with a much smaller map for rush distance.
Since Monitor, the mapmaker, was busy during the fixing period, he only had enough time to apply a quick fix, one that changed the middle layout in favor of longer and more even rush distances. This had the unfortunately side effect of making the middle even more boring than it already was.
In the end, I was glad that this map did not win. I felt like this wasn't the best possible implementation of the Outsider concept and that if it were released, it would turn people off of the concept as a whole. This is in no way to discredit Monitor as he could not have known what we know now. I think this was a very valuable learning experience both for me, Monitor, and the entire mapping community. Overall, this experience has led me to one conclusion: The Outsider concept has to be implemented as a three player map.
Take a look at this this classic BW map. Having it at three players solves all the major problems we experienced with Koprulu. With two sets of mineral lines between each of the bases and the general longer distance between each base, rotational imbalance is decreased significantly. Players would have a choice to take the frontdoor natural or the backdoor natural no matter how they spawn. In addition, because there's only three players to worry about, the center can be made more interesting with acceptable rush distances. All the while, the size of the map would be relatively unchanged.
I know three player maps are hard, but I hope someone attempts it for next season. In conclusion, monk's formula for a winning TLMC #3 map:
Three player map
copy Outsider's layout of two mineral lines between each base.
Create an interesting center.
Add your own ideas/flair.
Yeonsu Here are some small thoughts on this map:
I've gotten a lot of mixed reactions about the aesthetics of this map. Some think it's the best out of all the maps in this regard. Others believe the features are hard to distinguish from each other.
Even though the rush distance is short, I think this will be a fairly turtle-ly map due to the easily defend-able first four bases.
I don't think the islands will be used that much unfortunately. The first four bases are just so easy to take that I don't see many rushing for the island. I hope I'm wrong though!
The one change we suggested to this map was that blink stalker all-ins were a bit too strong. Thus, a few changes were made to the main layout to weaken them.
Ravage This map recieved a few changes after it won 2nd place in the TLMC. Here's the most updated version. For many, especially mappers, this was a surprise win. After all, it's very similar to both Ohana and Belshir Vestige. It's also very similar to Insidious. So why did it do so much better than its darker counterpart?
I believe Ravage is the perfect example of how players see maps differently from mappers. Mappers will generally just see a an Ohana clone. Here's what I see: I love that killing the middle rocks opens up more aggressive options. I love that the watch tower is initially useless, but suddenly gains value when the rocks are down. I love that you have a lot of choices about which expansions to take. I love that all the expansions are well-balanced in their difficulty to secure. I love that it also has a lot of interesting paths. There are no revolutionary features on this map, but there's so many small features that I feel mappers don't appreciate enough, features that promote interesting gameplay.
Out of all mappers, Ironman worked the closest with me after being selected as a finalist and often asked for advice and feedback. My feedback mostly focused on making sure all the map features had strategical relevance and that they would be used in an interesting way. [I take responsibility for those new collapsable rocks (unless you guys hate it, then it's all Ironman's fault)].
Frost Finally, the winner. Great map that utilizes the cool ice theme. You get a choice of two distinctly different expansions and they're well balanced in how easy they are to take. What I like most about it is that it's a square four player map that's wildly different from Whirlwind.
This is one of the only two where we didn't suggest any changes. This probably speaks well for the map in that it was already so polished when initially submitted. I don't have much to say about this map and that's probably a good thing!
Closing Thoughts Many mappers are frustrated and disillusioned with the maps that were picked as the winners for TLMC#2. Yes, they are three of the most standard maps in the nine-map map pool. But take a look at it this way: I think that we can all agree that these three maps are still an improvement on many of the Blizzard-made maps, both in terms of quality and creativity.
Think about it from a player's perspective; they have to make a living playing on these maps, so of course they're going to choose the safer, more balanced maps. If an imbalance is found in the middle of a league, the results could be catastrophic. As players get more used to the idea of more creative maps, they'll be more inclined to explore the unknown. As players begin to figure out that a previously unexplored map concept works, mappers will be able to take that concept further. Baby steps.
Would absolutely love to see this from all the jury members and see if the thoughts of the other three are any different, it's very exhuastive and ibtneresting to read.
I've always thought it's so, so hard to make a good, balanced, yet very different map.. vs. a standard(ish) map that might have just one or two really subtle twists. And this map contest really proved it. A lot of great mapmakers made valiant efforts with maps that have new / innovative features (or features brought back from BW), and the judges who seem reasonably qualified even picked a lot of them.. and then they all failed (pretty much).
That's not a jab at any person or any maps, it's just a "wow" moment when you think about it. This game really is so fucking complex lol. Maybe we will hit the mark next go-round.
I don't mind that all three maps were "standard", because quite frankly, we haven't had many great standard maps. Yes, we've have had tons of "bad" to "meh" standard maps, such as Shakuras. But having a map pool full of excellent standard maps, such as Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, and Whirlwind, is something we have never really had before. I certainly will welcome this over a map pool with even a single "meh" map. Though, from here on out I'd love to see things that really mix things up. Especially since Hots is getting more and more figured out as the days go by.
Great write up and I really enjoy reading this type of feedback. Even though you did bash my map I still think it's a good read. :p
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote:
Use your space: Think about how an average game on your map will play out. Is there space that will almost never be used? I've noticed that this mostly occurs in mirrored maps if all bases are on one side of the map. Sorry to put a map on the spot, but Habitation Station is a good example.
Pshhhhh! Come on now, the top 1/3 gets used early game, watchtower to detect rushes, plus it's the fastest rush distance. Middle 1/3 gets used when you grab a 3rd because you'll be most likely fighting on the high ground or around it just outside the 3rd. Bottom 1/3 gets used when you grab 4ths. Plus air play will always use the top 1/3! Come on now, why you hate it so much. /rage <3
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Give players choices in expansions: Allow for multiple possible thirds or fourths. This adds a dynamic nature to the map and allows for differentiation of games on your map. For example, Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak offer different fourths. Whirlwind and Frost offer different thirds.
This is something I just don't agree with at all. I don't really get why everybody is mad when you don't give them a choice for 3rds or 4ths when in probably 95% of the games they always expand to the same areas anyway. You mention Cloud Kingdom but in the majority of the games the 3rd is the base hugging your main and the 4th is the lowground outside the 3rd. Same with Daybreak, since they made the middle base a full base it's taken the majority of the time as the 4th. It actually seems quite rare to have the 11 & 5 bases get taken as 4ths as it spreads you out much farther.
Talking about having a choice in 3rds and 4ths on 4 player maps just doesn't make much sense, because without a choice then depending on the spawning positions you'd have tons of positional imbalances. For example if Frost didn't have Horizontal spawns you could easily just get rid of the 4 bases towards the middle of the map and nothing would change, because the majority of the games people will expand away from their opponent. But because of the chance of horizontal spawns you have to have the bases in the middle so you can still somewhat expand away from your opponent.
On June 22 2013 06:10 Fatam wrote: I've always thought it's so, so hard to make a good, balanced, yet very different map.. vs. a standard(ish) map that might have just one or two really subtle twists. And this map contest really proved it. A lot of great mapmakers made valiant efforts with maps that have new / innovative features (or features brought back from BW), and the judges who seem reasonably qualified even picked a lot of them.. and then they all failed (pretty much).
That's not a jab at any person or any maps, it's just a "wow" moment when you think about it. This game really is so fucking complex lol. Maybe we will hit the mark next go-round.
I disagree, many of the standard maps which have been in tournament pools are mad imbalanced. Whirlwind is the most standard map ever, how long has that been in the map pools? How long has it had sub 40% TvZ winrate? If we add the Korean + international wol winrates on Icarus. We end up with 13-17, 7-6, 5-7. Not a lot of games, sure, but a better result than whirlwind.
Standard-ness and balance are completely orthogonal qualities honestly. There are standard maps that are imbalanced, there are standard mapsd that are balanced, there are nonstandard maps that are balanced, there are nonstandard maps that are imbalanced.
I mean, look at crevasse, throughout its history it was between 45-55 for all its matchups. Please don't tell me that the current metagame stops a nonstandard map from being balanced. Because if that's true, then the older metagame was simply better if it allowed nonstandard maps to be balanced.
Totally agree about the differences between maps like Ravage and Insidious. It is one of the biggest things that mapmakers gloss over in their process, since they mostly want to look, as you say, at the bigger picture. And, after all the changes, Ravage quickly became one of my favorite maps. But I think the main takeaway for a lot of mappers is that players don't play on an overview of the map. They play it up close and personal, every. Detail. Matters.
On June 22 2013 06:10 Fatam wrote: I've always thought it's so, so hard to make a good, balanced, yet very different map.. vs. a standard(ish) map that might have just one or two really subtle twists. And this map contest really proved it. A lot of great mapmakers made valiant efforts with maps that have new / innovative features (or features brought back from BW), and the judges who seem reasonably qualified even picked a lot of them.. and then they all failed (pretty much).
That's not a jab at any person or any maps, it's just a "wow" moment when you think about it. This game really is so fucking complex lol. Maybe we will hit the mark next go-round.
I disagree, many of the standard maps which have been in tournament pools are mad imbalanced. Whirlwind is the most standard map ever, how long has that been in the map pools? How long has it had sub 40% TvZ winrate? If we add the Korean + international wol winrates on Icarus. We end up with 13-17, 7-6, 5-7. Not a lot of games, sure, but a better result than whirlwind.
Standard-ness and balance are completely orthogonal qualities honestly. There are standard maps that are imbalanced, there are standard mapsd that are balanced, there are nonstandard maps that are balanced, there are nonstandard maps that are imbalanced.
I mean, look at crevasse, throughout its history it was between 45-55 for all its matchups. Please don't tell me that the current metagame stops a nonstandard map from being balanced. Because if that's true, then the older metagame was simply better if it allowed nonstandard maps to be balanced.
I didn't say all standard maps are balanced.. I just said it's easier to make a decent/solid standard map and have it near-balanced than to make a crazy map and achieve the same. Obviously that doesn't mean that all standard maps will have winrates that are better than all crazy maps. lol
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Aesthetics The first and most obvious point I want to highlight is that aesthetics mean so much. Out of all the maps that were submitted, about half of them could be thrown out immediately because of aesthetics. There were also a few maps that were in the range of being considered for finalists, but were edged out by maps that had better aesthetics. Not only do aesthetics make the map look better, they also show that you put a lot of work into the map. The nine finalists all had excellent aesthetics and I would argue that the top three that eventually won were among the best of the finalists in this category as well.
I think you present this a bit wrong. It's not the aesthetics that made these maps unchoosable, it's how bad they were. Nowadays the experience and level of mapmaking is on a level that you won't just use the editor for a bit and accidentially make a good map. If you make a good map it's because you have lots of experience and knowledge yourself and you made some more maps before. And that would (usually) elevate your aesthetics to a decent level. Thus I'd say good, well crafted maps that have shitty aestheitcs are super rare.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Who's Judging? [...] Mappers focus more on the big picture; they like new and interesting concepts that stray far from the norms. Players have to actually play on the maps and focus on play-ability and balance. Mappers and players also see differences in what is considered "interesting". The best example I can give is Ravage; a mapper might see that map as a Ohana or Belshir Vestige clone, but players picked up on the little differences in the map that made it play both differently and interestingly. More on this later. After speaking with Ironman, I think one of the reasons he has such success in these contests is that he understands the differences between mappers and professional players. The lesson here is to cater to your judges as because they're mostly players, they'll have different focuses than the average mapper.
Maps are about finding a good synergy between (interesting) design and balance as you say. However I think the good mapmakers are always factoring in balance and are keen to get as much good feedback on balance to improve those smaller things. Players on the other hand basically do not care about good design as long as the balance (for their matchups) is correct in their (biased I might add) eyes. In general I think design comes before balance. You set out to make a certain type of map, whether that's a map that promotes cliff dropping, a map that's just very clean standard 4p rotational (Whirlwind) or a map that captures the spirit of Outsider and the double bases. Your map actually has to be something and maybe more importantly it has to fill a role in the map pools, since map pools actually should be diverse in some way. Balance comes afterwards and can mostly be achieved in one way or another (as you point out later on Khalim's Will).
I think in all of this the most important part is that (at least in my opinion) the pro players themselves aren't the actual target audience. The target audience ultimately is the viewer, because the viewer is the biggest audience and is what defines SC 2 and gives it stability and longevity. Sure they also like balance as much as anyone. But they also like diverse map pools and new map concept even if they are often not aware of that!
In that way the viewers are kind of like a guy who only ever ate at McDonalds. He sees other better and healhier food, and maybe he made some bad experience tasting a salad in the past, and he like "eh I don't want anything else, forever fast food". But then you force him to eat at good restaurantes. And mabye at first he will spit it out again and call it shit cos he isn't used to it, but after a while he will enjoy it more and more. And at some point he is used to this, and sure while he might enjoy a well made burger once in a while he will look back at the exlusive fast food eating days and think "how could I ever enjoy this?"
Basically I don't see a map like Ravage having a significant impact on spectator value in a current map pool. It will play out in almost undistinguishable ways from other current or recent maps and it has nothing that makes it stand out. My point is not that Ravage itself in a vacuum is horrible. But my point is that the maps (at least outside of proleague) have all been so bland and nothing has REALLY stood out, so that adding another one isn't an achievement for TLMC. To further prove my point that I'm not just anti-standard and thus anti-Ravage, two scenarios. 2 players play a series on first map Khalim's Will, second a Monty Hall remake (hehe) and third on Ravage and the storyline would be kinda like both players showed some very map specific stuff on the first maps, now lets see how they compare on a very standard map. Second scenario they play Bel'Shir Vestige, Akilon Flats and Ravage. And it's like well... did it even matter they played on three different maps?
Additionally I believe at least half the map pool should be standard maps like Whirlwind or Daybreak or whatever, in case people still want to believe I just hate all standard maps. No I just hate shit map pools and no diversity/progress.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: How do I judge? Here's some more perspective on how I personally judge. I imagine most of the other player-judges went through this process as well. [...]
Not sure if that's supposed to be a subtle attack on me, since I am the only non-player judge?! But I can assure you that that's the stuff I and all the good mapmakers think about when looking at or making maps.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Closing Thoughts Many mappers are frustrated and disillusioned with the maps that were picked as the winners for TLMC#2. Yes, they are three of the most standard maps in the nine-map map pool. But take a look at it this way: I think that we can all agree that these three maps are still an improvement on many of the Blizzard-made maps, both in terms of quality and creativity.
First of all making higher quality maps than Blizzard isn't much of an accomplishment. Second I think Blizzard has often tried to be much more creative (especially in the beginning but also recently Klontas) but failed to execute it correctly. I think they would be happy if the finalists were more creative actually, also considering how they actually gave Anaconda and Gwandelli beach the LE tag recently and stated they considered them for ladder. They also said they themselves try to make diverse and interesting maps (and not the same shit all the time).
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Think about it from a player's perspective; they have to make a living playing on these maps, so of course they're going to choose the safer, more balanced maps. If an imbalance is found in the middle of a league, the results could be catastrophic. As players get more used to the idea of more creative maps, they'll be more inclined to explore the unknown. As players begin to figure out that a previously unexplored map concept works, mappers will be able to take that concept further. Baby steps.
I think you are either way overoptimistic or just the most patient person ever, cos players that are giving the choice between standard maps and slight remakes of maps they already know like Ravage and new wild ideas like Koprulu will always go for the safe choice and I don't see any Baby steps in the other direction until like years and years away from now (way after LotV). (also notable in the case of Insidious players actually heavily disliked it because it's a dark map. like seriously, next TLMC you can't even use a darker tileset anymore).
In the end what TLMC does is present them with a diverse pool of top 9 maps and all the two polls do is then veto all the maps that do anything new and scary that players aren't used to. You will only ever end up with the same results here. Also I think someone said sth about that that was quite logical. In these polls you only ever get a consensus and the biggest consensus you can get for a map is if it just doesn't offend anyone. So all the maps that are deemed too out there, new, interesting or in any way broken (take for example people always saying backdoor=broken on a map like Khalim's Will) will get views from their respective fans, but most of the votes will go to the maps that all those fans of sth new didn't vote for and that just seem like the safe option.
I don't actually see TLMC diversifying (and thus improving) map pools in any significant way as long as the polls are used like this and I actually again hope more for the Koreans to do this. Additionally I don't see a reason for mapmakers to create and submit anything but relatively standard maps that can't offend anyone in any way (and are also bright and happy). Lastly I don't see a reason to even judge this contest, I think my judging ultimately was pretty worthless and didn't represent the end result very well. Next time we might as well ask the polls to choose from 20 maps.. or 30... or why not all. Apparently these people know better and should get the right to decide, right?!
I wanted to write more and probably structure my thoughts much better but so much gets lost between the free thoughts I have and writing it down here. I really liked your choices for maps (as they were obv very similar to mine) and most of your thoughts on how to judge maps and the game design etc monk, but I really have to disagree with you when it comes to the community, map choosing process and TLMC it seems.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Give players choices in expansions: Allow for multiple possible thirds or fourths. This adds a dynamic nature to the map and allows for differentiation of games on your map. For example, Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak offer different fourths. Whirlwind and Frost offer different thirds.
This is something I just don't agree with at all. I don't really get why everybody is mad when you don't give them a choice for 3rds or 4ths when in probably 95% of the games they always expand to the same areas anyway. You mention Cloud Kingdom but in the majority of the games the 3rd is the base hugging your main and the 4th is the lowground outside the 3rd. Same with Daybreak, since they made the middle base a full base it's taken the majority of the time as the 4th. It actually seems quite rare to have the 11 & 5 bases get taken as 4ths as it spreads you out much farther.
On Cloud Kingdom, everyone was taking the fourth next to the standard third forever. Then suddenly in 2013, a year after the map had been out, Terran began taking the fourth above/below the natural. Similarly, everyone was taking the same thirds on Belshir Vestige. But then one day Flash started taking the base above/below the main in TvZ and lots of people started copying him. Right now, a majority of Terran take that base in TvZ and I suspect more will do the same in the future. I agree that 95% of the time, players will choose the same location to expand to and that's just how the game is. However, just the fact that this process can happen makes a map much more interesting imo.
I generally won't speak for the other judges, but I know this is one thing that TLO completely agrees with me on. Having a choice of bases is a big sell for him, as he's said it in an interview when asked about maps.
Hmm, I think every map I've made since.. maybe ever? has had optional expo paths.. so obviously I'm a big fan of them. But I don't think maps have to, it really depends.
You can have a single base be dynamic, say for instance if there is a choke a short distance away from the base but it opens up bigtime as you get closer to the base, then that is a base that all 3 races could use to their advantage and the option to expand somewhere else isn't as needed.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Aesthetics The first and most obvious point I want to highlight is that aesthetics mean so much. Out of all the maps that were submitted, about half of them could be thrown out immediately because of aesthetics. There were also a few maps that were in the range of being considered for finalists, but were edged out by maps that had better aesthetics. Not only do aesthetics make the map look better, they also show that you put a lot of work into the map. The nine finalists all had excellent aesthetics and I would argue that the top three that eventually won were among the best of the finalists in this category as well.
I think you present this a bit wrong. It's not the aesthetics that made these maps unchoosable, it's how bad they were. Nowadays the experience and level of mapmaking is on a level that you won't just use the editor for a bit and accidentially make a good map. If you make a good map it's because you have lots of experience and knowledge yourself and you made some more maps before. And that would (usually) elevate your aesthetics to a decent level. Thus I'd say good, well crafted maps that have shitty aestheitcs are super rare.
That's fair enough. However, I will say that I think there were a few good maps that had really poor aesthetics.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Who's Judging? [...] Mappers focus more on the big picture; they like new and interesting concepts that stray far from the norms. Players have to actually play on the maps and focus on play-ability and balance. Mappers and players also see differences in what is considered "interesting". The best example I can give is Ravage; a mapper might see that map as a Ohana or Belshir Vestige clone, but players picked up on the little differences in the map that made it play both differently and interestingly. More on this later. After speaking with Ironman, I think one of the reasons he has such success in these contests is that he understands the differences between mappers and professional players. The lesson here is to cater to your judges as because they're mostly players, they'll have different focuses than the average mapper.
Maps are about finding a good synergy between (interesting) design and balance as you say. However I think the good mapmakers are always factoring in balance and are keen to get as much good feedback on balance to improve those smaller things. Players on the other hand basically do not care about good design as long as the balance (for their matchups) is correct in their (biased I might add) eyes. In general I think design comes before balance. You set out to make a certain type of map, whether that's a map that promotes cliff dropping, a map that's just very clean standard 4p rotational (Whirlwind) or a map that captures the spirit of Outsider and the double bases. Your map actually has to be something and maybe more importantly it has to fill a role in the map pools, since map pools actually should be diverse in some way. Balance comes afterwards and can mostly be achieved in one way or another (as you point out later on Khalim's Will).
I think in all of this the most important part is that (at least in my opinion) the pro players themselves aren't the actual target audience. The target audience ultimately is the viewer, because the viewer is the biggest audience and is what defines SC 2 and gives it stability and longevity. Sure they also like balance as much as anyone. But they also like diverse map pools and new map concept even if they are often not aware of that!
In that way the viewers are kind of like a guy who only ever ate at McDonalds. He sees other better and healhier food, and maybe he made some bad experience tasting a salad in the past, and he like "eh I don't want anything else, forever fast food". But then you force him to eat at good restaurantes. And mabye at first he will spit it out again and call it shit cos he isn't used to it, but after a while he will enjoy it more and more. And at some point he is used to this, and sure while he might enjoy a well made burger once in a while he will look back at the exlusive fast food eating days and think "how could I ever enjoy this?"
Basically I don't see a map like Ravage having a significant impact on spectator value in a current map pool. It will play out in almost undistinguishable ways from other current or recent maps and it has nothing that makes it stand out. My point is not that Ravage itself in a vacuum is horrible. But my point is that the maps (at least outside of proleague) have all been so bland and nothing has REALLY stood out, so that adding another one isn't an achievement for TLMC. To further prove my point that I'm not just anti-standard and thus anti-Ravage, two scenarios. 2 players play a series on first map Khalim's Will, second a Monty Hall remake (hehe) and third on Ravage and the storyline would be kinda like both players showed some very map specific stuff on the first maps, now lets see how they compare on a very standard map. Second scenario they play Bel'Shir Vestige, Akilon Flats and Ravage. And it's like well... did it even matter they played on three different maps?
Additionally I believe at least half the map pool should be standard maps like Whirlwind or Daybreak or whatever, in case people still want to believe I just hate all standard maps. No I just hate shit map pools and no diversity/progress.
Yes, I agree that design comes before balance. This portion was more aimed at the maps who were top 50 but not finalists. I noticed a lot of glaring balance problems that could have easily been fixed.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: How do I judge? Here's some more perspective on how I personally judge. I imagine most of the other player-judges went through this process as well. [...]
Not sure if that's supposed to be a subtle attack on me, since I am the only non-player judge?! But I can assure you that that's the stuff I and all the good mapmakers think about when looking at or making maps.
Not intended as a jab to you and I'm sorry if you felt that way. I was just less sure of how you judged maps compared and I thought that your thought process might have been more in line with those of an average map maker.
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Closing Thoughts Many mappers are frustrated and disillusioned with the maps that were picked as the winners for TLMC#2. Yes, they are three of the most standard maps in the nine-map map pool. But take a look at it this way: I think that we can all agree that these three maps are still an improvement on many of the Blizzard-made maps, both in terms of quality and creativity.
First of all making higher quality maps than Blizzard isn't much of an accomplishment. Second I think Blizzard has often tried to be much more creative (especially in the beginning but also recently Klontas) but failed to execute it correctly. I think they would be happy if the finalists were more creative actually, also considering how they actually gave Anaconda and Gwandelli beach the LE tag recently and stated they considered them for ladder. They also said they themselves try to make diverse and interesting maps (and not the same shit all the time).
On June 22 2013 05:21 monk wrote: Think about it from a player's perspective; they have to make a living playing on these maps, so of course they're going to choose the safer, more balanced maps. If an imbalance is found in the middle of a league, the results could be catastrophic. As players get more used to the idea of more creative maps, they'll be more inclined to explore the unknown. As players begin to figure out that a previously unexplored map concept works, mappers will be able to take that concept further. Baby steps.
I think you are either way overoptimistic or just the most patient person ever, cos players that are giving the choice between standard maps and slight remakes of maps they already know like Ravage and new wild ideas like Koprulu will always go for the safe choice and I don't see any Baby steps in the other direction until like years and years away from now (way after LotV). (also notable in the case of Insidious players actually heavily disliked it because it's a dark map. like seriously, next TLMC you can't even use a darker tileset anymore).
In the end what TLMC does is present them with a diverse pool of top 9 maps and all the two polls do is then veto all the maps that do anything new and scary that players aren't used to. You will only ever end up with the same results here. Also I think someone said sth about that that was quite logical. In these polls you only ever get a consensus and the biggest consensus you can get for a map is if it just doesn't offend anyone. So all the maps that are deemed too out there, new, interesting or in any way broken (take for example people always saying backdoor=broken on a map like Khalim's Will) will get views from their respective fans, but most of the votes will go to the maps that all those fans of sth new didn't vote for and that just seem like the safe option.
I don't actually see TLMC diversifying (and thus improving) map pools in any significant way as long as the polls are used like this and I actually again hope more for the Koreans to do this. Additionally I don't see a reason for mapmakers to create and submit anything but relatively standard maps that can't offend anyone in any way (and are also bright and happy). Lastly I don't see a reason to even judge this contest, I think my judging ultimately was pretty worthless and didn't represent the end result very well. Next time we might as well ask the polls to choose from 20 maps.. or 30... or why not all. Apparently these people know better and should get the right to decide, right?!
I wanted to write more and probably structure my thoughts much better but so much gets lost between the free thoughts I have and writing it down here. I really liked your choices for maps (as they were obv very similar to mine) and most of your thoughts on how to judge maps and the game design etc monk, but I really have to disagree with you when it comes to the community, map choosing process and TLMC it seems.
I guess this is the part where I disagree with you in certain circumstances. Case in point is Korpolu, as I've mentioned. It scored fourth in this contest and in my opinion(no offense to Monitor again), it did not nearly reach the potential of an Outsider remake. There were balance issues, the middle was uninteresting, and aesthetics were not top notch. Imagine a version of Korpolu with all these fixes and how much potential it could have to win the next contest.
As for this TLMC system, what do you think would be a better system to inject maps in the ladder and tournament pool?
On June 22 2013 08:39 NewSunshine wrote: Totally agree about the differences between maps like Ravage and Insidious. It is one of the biggest things that mapmakers gloss over in their process, since they mostly want to look, as you say, at the bigger picture. And, after all the changes, Ravage quickly became one of my favorite maps. But I think the main takeaway for a lot of mappers is that players don't play on an overview of the map. They play it up close and personal, every. Detail. Matters.
Only after I made that change to the third and fourth for him :D
Btw, nice write up. I really like reading about maps O_o
Well I don't really but it serves my agenda to prove that 'experts' tend to disagree a lot.
If you read my responses, you'll see that we actually don't disagree much at all. And what we did disagree on was not on judging maps but rather just on the level of optimism.
EPT
