Efficiently using space basically means to use the entirety of your canvas. I've never really agreed with this idea. Because a map canvas is always a rectangle, which is a pretty arbitrary shape. I have the feeling an oval would in general be better to fit a map into than a rectangle. Forcibly forcing a map to fit into a rectangle as tightly as possile tends to lead to awkward proportions. It's like making a sculpture that has to fit into a box as tightly as possible, in the end a cube isn't really an interesting sculpture unless you're out to pay a million for someone to design something to liven up central park a little.
In the end, some proportions just work better than others and forcing stuff into a rectangle can lead to some complications:
- 1: Is it really the best thing possible that it is very hard on CK to form a defensive concave on top of your own ramp. Did the author intend this, or is this a concession that had to be made to force the map into a rectangle? - 2: Was it really the intention of the mapper to make it hard to get a defensive concave as someone approaches through that choke (it's very hard for instance to stop a sentry/immortal coming through there). Or is that just something that had to be done to force the map into a rectangle? - 3: Was that really the most optimal way for that passageway, or again, is this a concession that needed to be made?
Taking another example.
- 1: Again, a really long path where no real defensive concave can be formed. The third of daybreak can be particularly awkward where a defending player coming in from the natural may find himself against a concave of the attacking player. - 2/3: I feel this area in general just doesn't flow in a very natural way.
I do feel these examples illustrate how maps become awkward, primarily at their edges, because people try to force them into rectangular canvasses a bit too much. I mean, what's the purpose? The only real reason I can think of of why you'd limit yourself to such an arbitrary shape is eliminating dead space for excessive air and drop usage. Which can easily be fixed in a lot of cases by no fly blockers.
I don't think the axiom of efficiently using space serves any real purpose and may have to be re-addressed.
wow... can you explain in noob-english? i don't know half of those academic words you are using... Google translate make it sound like you are talking about using the entire space when painting something...
if you are talking about having more circular concaves, i guess it would create wierd scenarios like not being able to block space with buildings and such... Does a map exist that uses the concepts you are talking about? if there is, including it as an example would be nice.
On February 08 2013 00:48 Barrin wrote: I've agreed for a while (implied once or twice) that a circle/oval can be just as good as a square/rectangle.
That would be a nice option. Are you saying ovals/circles are necessarily better?
No, I'm sayng it can be depending on the map. But I find it hard to believe that a rectangular canvas is the ideal canvas for every map. Sure, there'sprobably one or two map ideas which by sheer coincidence fits nicely into a rectangle. But in the end, most maps, as outlined above, could probably use a different shape. It doesn't even need to be a rectangle or oval or whatever. You can make anything that comes from a random inkblot.
And you can create your own canvas in the end with no fly zones.
In the relative lack of explanation in the OP, there is precisely zero explanation of the reasons to use as much space as possible. Note that this is "as much as possible", not "the entirety" - I tire of straw men tbh.
One day I'll get around to re-explaining the significance of the following formula a = area d = air/dead space g = ground space r = resource collection rate e = Efficiency Quotient
e = r/a(.5d+g)
but I donno if I wanna do that today :X
Yes, and what is the benefit of using the space in the canvas 'efficiently', like I said, as soon as you add a pathing blocker/ no fly blocker it effectively no longer becomes part of the canvas. You an create a canvas in any shape with pathing blockers. Apart from that, dead space is also part of the map with certain mechanical properties. It's after all a type of terrain in the end which only air units can traverse so you definitely use it just as much as you use any other terrain like high ground. The only thing you don't use is when you put no fly blockers as well because at that point it becomes functionally equivalent to the end of the canvas, but possibly in a non rectangular shape.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'd like CK or Daybreak more without the awkward points I outlined which to me seem concessions to fit it into a rectangular canvas as tightly as possible.
I go more for the road that says that a square map is more pleasant to the eye than a clearly rectangular one (example; Cross Fire), so if one want`s to make a highly pleasant map it's recomended for it to be more of a square than rectangular, but as sisko says a square map it's harder to achieve since there are these awkward spots left in the map where things don't flow as they should. For making a square map there are sacrifices, and what you see are the sacrifices made, or at least that's the way i see it.
I agree, air space is needed whether its to achieve good proportions or balance air directed play. However I don't see too many maps suffering from the issue you outline on DB and CK, nor are the maps that have a lot of excess space hated for said space. Ohana for instance has tons of air space, its a very awkward shape but on a rectangular 'canvas'.
I know you're using those 2 maps as simply examples for the concept you are discussing and not an actual discussion of those 2 maps. I feel it is none the less important to point out the number of iterations that both maps went through in development -- every single aspect of both maps had a purpose to it -- and also to consider WHEN those maps were developed (hint* it was before the immortal/sentry all-in came about).
Now, as for space efficiency, I do not necessarily think that the rectangle is the problem. I think it is how we mappers cannot separate ourselves from the constraint of the rectangle on face -- by which I mean we end up using the same positions for spawns/naturals repeatedly -- when if we rotated the map say 15-20 degrees we could easily achieve a more "oval" map experience. Ohana for instance, if rotated so that the edges of the map ligned up along a singular line would fit into the rectangular constraint while achieving the "oval" design once the boundaries are adjusted.
The other thing to consider is the use of negative space (air space) and whether that should be considered part of the efficiency of a map. In my opinion -- for WoL -- it should not because of the limited airplay in WoL. As for HotS -- I think increasingly airspace will be more and more important but it will have to be constrained a little by the ground force aspect, and thus the rectangular canvas will remain the best canvas (it forces the mapper to consider the interaction between the the ground army and the air army). I do not like the idea of using air blockers to force an oval shape when you can do the same thing naturally by rotating your map design and constraining map boundaries. Additionally, air blockers are not clearly marked to players -- which although you can do this with doodads, that further constrains your map by the doodads you must use (i.e. rock giants, etc. . .) or rediculously over-scaling some. So a concession for the sake of the player must be made.
On February 08 2013 02:33 SigmaFiE wrote: I know you're using those 2 maps as simply examples for the concept you are discussing and not an actual discussion of those 2 maps. I feel it is none the less important to point out the number of iterations that both maps went through in development -- every single aspect of both maps had a purpose to it -- and also to consider WHEN those maps were developed (hint* it was before the immortal/sentry all-in came about).
True, but it's not just the immortal sentry. It's a lot of pushes through that area in a lot of matchups. You can't set up a defensive concave. I can see it at the third, but the difficulty of setting up one on top of your own ramp on CK is famous. There is much more room for a concave at the bottom and I do feel this is simply a concession to squeeze the map into a rectangle.
Now, as for space efficiency, I do not necessarily think that the rectangle is the problem. I think it is how we mappers cannot separate ourselves from the constraint of the rectangle on face -- by which I mean we end up using the same positions for spawns/naturals repeatedly -- when if we rotated the map say 15-20 degrees we could easily achieve a more "oval" map experience. Ohana for instance, if rotated so that the edges of the map ligned up along a singular line would fit into the rectangular constraint while achieving the "oval" design once the boundaries are adjusted.
But this is the interesting part. The author choose not to shear the intended geography of the map to fit the rectangle in this case. I doubt this was because the author wanted the deadspace near the third area. Rather, this was because it made the most sense for the map to have the geography like that.
If you make it a rectangle by shearing, then the entrance ramp to the fourth basically comes to sit at almost at the place the little oasis outside of the natural is now. Clearly that doesn't befall that map all that way.
The other thing to consider is the use of negative space (air space) and whether that should be considered part of the efficiency of a map. In my opinion -- for WoL -- it should not because of the limited airplay in WoL. As for HotS -- I think increasingly airspace will be more and more important but it will have to be constrained a little by the ground force aspect, and thus the rectangular canvas will remain the best canvas (it forces the mapper to consider the interaction between the the ground army and the air army). I do not like the idea of using air blockers to force an oval shape when you can do the same thing naturally by rotating your map design and constraining map boundaries. Additionally, air blockers are not clearly marked to players -- which although you can do this with doodads, that further constrains your map by the doodads you must use (i.e. rock giants, etc. . .) or rediculously over-scaling some. So a concession for the sake of the player must be made.
But that's the issue of the editor, you cannot rotate your map design because you're still working with square hexes. Ramps only go in 8 directions, 4 of those 8 directions are typically best avoided because they're considered a bit buggy. You can't just rotate a map.
I feel air blockers on dances of fireflies worked alright, it's clearly indicated by doodads and effectively the map has been given a sort of different canvass because the amount of air space would otherwise be overkill. Moving the main backwards into the corner to fit it into a square would completely wreck the geography of the map.
Never liked CK because it is too squished into a tiny rectangle. A lot of the proportions are weird, especially around the third base, but all over really.
#1 on CK and #2 on DB are big annoyances I have with these maps... I think they are the two most overrated maps out there for sure.
I don't think map spacing should be completely freeform though. I think it needs a little structure to keep the overview coherent.
Edit: I mean, I do like CK and DB and they were an improvement over the maps they replaced in the pool for sure, but I think we can do a lot better now... Although I did have some proportional concerns for both when I first saw them as well.
On February 08 2013 03:11 Barrin wrote: You keep saying 'concession', but this implies that there is a better way to do these things. I'm not saying there isn't, but you're not really saying why - and you're certainly not saying how.
Just don't try to squeeze a map tightly into a rectangle and you're done.
You haven't even come close to establishing that these parts aren't how the mapmakers intended them BTW.
I can't look into their mind? How would I know. I'd just say that I think it's unusual to say the least if it was intentional that you can't properly form a defensive concave at the top of your ramp in CK.
I see what you are describing, but I do not regard them as issues, only unique features that were essentially intentional regardless of whether their maker knew what could happen on them. And in some of these cases I think they knew quite well what could happen on them.
It would be a huge cosmological coincidence if every map fit nicely and intendedly into a rectangle of the same coincidence as if they all fit into a trapezoid, hexagon or triangle.
- 1: Is it really the best thing possible that it is very hard on CK to form a defensive concave on top of your own ramp. Did the author intend this, or is this a concession that had to be made to force the map into a rectangle?
What is 'the best thing possible'?
I think most people would agree the best thing possible would be being able to form a defensive concave on top of your ramp.
Regardless of whether the author intended it (as a BW mapmaker he probably did TBH), this is an interesting unique feature that encourages players to cope in their builds. All you've established is that it's different (and in what way) - you haven't established why it's bad or suboptimal.
I haven't, I'm just pointing out the cosmological coincidence that all these maps magically fit exactly into a rectangle. Which implies that it isn't a coincidence, and that they set out to make them fit. And therefore re-arranged some things from how they originally were just to make them fit better. For the purpose on itself to make it fit into a rectangle.
Nor have you established that the rectangular shape of the map requires this to be like this. He really could move that stuff around.
It absolutely requires it. If you widen the pathable area at that spot to allow a defensive concave it goes outside of the rectangle. Therefore you have to widen the bounds on the map and then it doesn't fit quite as tightly any more.
Out of any feature in this map that's intention it's gotta be that one. I feel like the way that whole base is constructed and positioned is like the signature of the map.
Then again, it's a pretty big coincidence that all this happened to exactly fit into a rectangle together with just enough space on the lowground to make the fourth base. I highly doubt that. He didn't design the third layout exactly like he wanted and it made sense in terms of the optimal treatment of engagements and then realized 'Hey, it happens to fit into a rectangle', that's too big of a coincidence. He altered the layout of the third specifically so that it would fit into a rectangle.
Yes, it takes a lot of skill to defend in the midgame (it's proven time and time again that you can do it, its fun watching this happen). Why is this bad?
I'm not saying it is bad. I'm just saying that the area is designed to make it fit into a rectangle. Not designed for the optimal layout on its own per se. And I'm asking why would you design stuff to make it fit into a rectangle? It's like designing a sports field like a race track so that it fits exactly into a rectangle rather than on its own.
- 3: Was that really the most optimal way for that passageway, or again, is this a concession that needed to be made?
Out-of-the-way, small corridor leading to out-of-the-way base, with the corridor being overlooked by high ground to potentially defend it.
And again, it magically fits tightly and snugly into a rectangle, this isn't a coincidence, the passageway was designed to fit tightly into a rectangle rather than being looked at on its own like 'Gee, what is the optimal way to make this passageway, what form would lead to the most enjoyable kinds of play.'
- 1: Again, a really long path where no real defensive concave can be formed. The third of daybreak can be particularly awkward where a defending player coming in from the natural may find himself against a concave of the attacking player.
Which encourages the defending player to have good map awareness and/or extra defense.
Maybe, but that was not the reasoning the mapmaker didn it that way, the mapmaker did it that way to again fit it into a rectangle. That's the only purpose of that layout there. It's not done for gameplay apart from to fit the map as tightly into a rectangle as possible.
1) That's why you have a cliff overlooking the ramp, which in some ways is better than a concave. And nothing prevents you from having a concave at the top in addition to an extension along the cliff, all shooting at the ramp funnel, made all the more effective with a wall. Wtf are you talking about?
2) That area is slightly wider for the defender. So the defender has a concave advantage, though slight. The power of it as an attacking route is that it's a hallway -- you won't get sandwiched from behind. The cost is that you have to walk quite a bit farther. And a good player will be able to harass you with a mobile squad from behind anyway (though not in all cases of course).
3) That pathway seems perfect? It is narrow because it's the direct connection between the corner 5th and the forward XWT 4th/5th for the other player. This also allows range 6 units to cover all of it from above, including sentries casting FF, and even marines and roaches and queens can get damage in. I don't see why there's a problem.
I'm not trying to say CK is perfect, or that it might not have looked different and no worse for it were it not constrained to a rectangle, but honestly I wonder at the choice of examples.
As for the discussion topic, it's a stylistic choice to try and maximize canvas usage, and there's no reason to adhere to it zealously especially without any critical thought as to what your map wants and what it would look like otherwise. Most of the time I think edge airspace should be minimized as part of a natural check on the mobility of air units which already enjoy the great advantage of cliff-walk, water-walk, ravine-walk, mountain-walk, space-walk, and all others kinds of -walk.
Great, everyone is suddenly talking about if the maps are good or not which I just used as illustration instead of the actual point I'm making. This isn't a topic about CK or Daybreak and if those things are good or not. It's a topic about that those parts of the map where clearly formed in that way not for their own sake but to force the map into a square canvas and why exactly that really needs to be done as any amount of excess air space can be removed by NFZ's.
We (purportedly) shy away from NFZ because they operate like FF for the pathing AI, causing units to get stuck and other weird stuff, especially when the boundary isn't exactly clear and players queue up a list of movement waypoints.
NFZ's only let you get stuck if you place them in the middle of the map. As in, if you can actually queue up movement to the other side. They actually work fine if you line the edge of the map with them because you can't go to the other side of them.
I've seen dropships get stuck on edge NFZ in a uniform line. I dunno. What can I say, I wish they worked better so that I could use them for 3player maps.
I think it all comes down to the size of the map. If you look at your examples on cloud kingdom for instance, if you were to say increase the map bounds by another 16, you could add 8 more on each side and therefore make the point at (1) better. You could increase the choke at (3) to make it better for the defender. But is increasing the total map size the correct thing to do? Now it takes longer to more from point (1) to point (3), now other chokes will be larger, now other bases will be more dangerous, which means now you have to go back to these new problems that arise and have to attempt to fix those, even though before the map size change they were perfect to begin with.
To me, it almost seems like you're saying that when Cloud Kingdom got made, Superouman put the map bounds at 120x120 and wasn't allowed to change that number at all. Sure, if a map is 256x256 then there is nothing you could do about it, but saying maps would flow better if they were circular due to people constraining them in a rectangle doesn't really seem like the case.
You haven't even come close to establishing that these parts aren't how the mapmakers intended them BTW.
I can't look into their mind? How would I know. I'd just say that I think it's unusual to say the least if it was intentional that you can't properly form a defensive concave at the top of your ramp in CK.
It hasn't been established that you can't establish a defensive concave, so this point can be disregarded as a strawman.
I see what you are describing, but I do not regard them as issues, only unique features that were essentially intentional regardless of whether their maker knew what could happen on them. And in some of these cases I think they knew quite well what could happen on them.
It would be a huge cosmological coincidence if every map fit nicely and intendedly into a rectangle of the same coincidence as if they all fit into a trapezoid, hexagon or triangle.
Maps don't fit exactly into squares. Look at Ohana, no matter at what angle you rotate it, it fails to fit into any sort of rectangle. They fit by the virtue of airspace, something that incidentally is something that maps should also have, in one form or another. You might have a point if every map used 100% of the map boundaries as pathable ground space, as that seems much more to be like the concessions and contortions you describe. Most, if not all, maps have holes and areas where the design does not intrude, no map is a perfect square. They just happen to be oriented so that they fit into a rectangle, because a rectangle is the shape given to us as mapmakers.
- 1: Is it really the best thing possible that it is very hard on CK to form a defensive concave on top of your own ramp. Did the author intend this, or is this a concession that had to be made to force the map into a rectangle?
What is 'the best thing possible'?
I think most people would agree the best thing possible would be being able to form a defensive concave on top of your ramp.
You can on Cloud Kingdom. The design of the map does make it a challenge though, which makes situations involving defense of the 3rd more exciting to watch, because there's more tension and less predictability.
Regardless of whether the author intended it (as a BW mapmaker he probably did TBH), this is an interesting unique feature that encourages players to cope in their builds. All you've established is that it's different (and in what way) - you haven't established why it's bad or suboptimal.
I haven't, I'm just pointing out the cosmological coincidence that all these maps magically fit exactly into a rectangle. Which implies that it isn't a coincidence, and that they set out to make them fit. And therefore re-arranged some things from how they originally were just to make them fit better. For the purpose on itself to make it fit into a rectangle.
I've explained above that maps don't fit exactly into rectangles, so there is no grand purpose to contort maps into a rectangular form. If a map needs to be made bigger to accommodate the map the mapmaker can do so, it's not that hard, and it's not uncommon.
Nor have you established that the rectangular shape of the map requires this to be like this. He really could move that stuff around.
It absolutely requires it. If you widen the pathable area at that spot to allow a defensive concave it goes outside of the rectangle. Therefore you have to widen the bounds on the map and then it doesn't fit quite as tightly any more.
Again as I've explained, no map fits tightly to begin with, I would be worried if they did. An increase in bounds can easily be accompanied by an adjustment of other factors to compensate. This falls under using the tools at your disposal as a mapmaker.
Out of any feature in this map that's intention it's gotta be that one. I feel like the way that whole base is constructed and positioned is like the signature of the map.
Then again, it's a pretty big coincidence that all this happened to exactly fit into a rectangle together with just enough space on the lowground to make the fourth base. I highly doubt that. He didn't design the third layout exactly like he wanted and it made sense in terms of the optimal treatment of engagements and then realized 'Hey, it happens to fit into a rectangle', that's too big of a coincidence. He altered the layout of the third specifically so that it would fit into a rectangle.
These things aren't coincidence once you reach that level of skill. It appears coincidental to you, because for you to make a comparably successful map would require a great deal of coincidence.
Yes, it takes a lot of skill to defend in the midgame (it's proven time and time again that you can do it, its fun watching this happen). Why is this bad?
I'm not saying it is bad. I'm just saying that the area is designed to make it fit into a rectangle. Not designed for the optimal layout on its own per se. And I'm asking why would you design stuff to make it fit into a rectangle? It's like designing a sports field like a race track so that it fits exactly into a rectangle rather than on its own.
If flying vehicles participated on these racetracks then yes, the surrounding areas would have to be accounted for. As for it being a rectangle specifically, look to the shape of the screen itself.
- 3: Was that really the most optimal way for that passageway, or again, is this a concession that needed to be made?
Out-of-the-way, small corridor leading to out-of-the-way base, with the corridor being overlooked by high ground to potentially defend it.
And again, it magically fits tightly and snugly into a rectangle, this isn't a coincidence, the passageway was designed to fit tightly into a rectangle rather than being looked at on its own like 'Gee, what is the optimal way to make this passageway, what form would lead to the most enjoyable kinds of play.'
This is just idiotic. Again, I've explained why this is wrong, no map actually fits tightly to a rectangular border, though airspace has to be accounted for. If anything, the only truly incidental factor at play with maps is the shape of the individual sections of airspace.
- 1: Again, a really long path where no real defensive concave can be formed. The third of daybreak can be particularly awkward where a defending player coming in from the natural may find himself against a concave of the attacking player.
Which encourages the defending player to have good map awareness and/or extra defense.
Maybe, but that was not the reasoning the mapmaker didn it that way, the mapmaker did it that way to again fit it into a rectangle. That's the only purpose of that layout there. It's not done for gameplay apart from to fit the map as tightly into a rectangle as possible.
You have absolutely 0 way of knowing this. It's a much safer bet that Superouman's years of experience as a BW mapmaker ensured that no aspect of his map went unaccounted for. The size of the rectangle has no bearing on the composition of the layout in this case, since it can easily be adjusted, and with little to no consequence, since other proportions could be adjusted if needed.
Someone had a Desert Oasis type map where the center route had a volcano in the middle of it, effectively splitting it into two narrower bridges passing either side of it. It had a single large NFZ on the volcano, which created an air split as well but going perpendicular to the land bridges (if you consider the flightpath between bases). I'll never remember the name.
Single point NFZ should be fine because it'll be strongly demarked with aesthetics (theoretically) and there's no way to get stuck except spamming right click on the NFZ endlessly.
If, for example, you wanted to create close air start locations where the most direct air route is blocked by a mountainous wall or something, it'd present a problem to use 2 or more NFZ because your air units will get trapped in the pockets inevitably formed between circular objects in any arrangement.
And I wanted to say more clearly that this discussion is really just about airspace, so I'll reiterate that I think edge airspace should me minimized in most cases, which coincides with the aesthetically biased goal of fitting into a rectangle.
I just meant that there's little in the way of well-articulated game reasoning for fitting inside a rectangle, it's just a predilection on the part of designers to square the ends as it were and leave no white on the paper.
I have thought that circle/oval map shapes could become accepted by the SC2 community if you put no fly zones in the corners, represented by tall doodads to make them clear (skyscrapers if it's a city map, for example).
The stipulations are: They HAVE to be in a concave. If there's even the slightest amount of convex between a few of the NFZs then something can get stuck. And they have to be incredibly well-tested to make sure there's no sticky spots.
I think Daybreak does a terrible job fitting into a square canvas... it has a ton of wasted space and the limited pathing is stupid.
Cloud Kingdom is quite nice, imo. All of the circles are intended I believe. I couldn't give any fewer fucks about the main ramp lol. The side path is longer to the third and functions as a pathway for the defender to reinforce to the fifth or middle of the map. I don't think an easier concave is needed, it would just make the third awkwardly large.
A circular map, in theory, would be ok with me.. but we don't have any circles. We've only got rectangles. Air pathing blockers could substitute, but there's still an awkward black space on the mini-map and blockers have been known to misfunction. In practice, most 2p circle maps play like shit because the distances don't change. Expos usually have to be around the edges of the map except in rare cases, which only very talented mapmakers have been able to pull off (see: Asgard from Brood War).
I can't give you a reason that there needs to be as little as possible, or no, wasted space. But all of my favorite maps have very little wasted space and fit into a rectangular canvas. Square 2p maps are no good in my book. Distances don't change, expos are circular, and the map is always too big because of minimum rush distance requirements.
1. The ramp can be defended via the high ground that covers the natural. Concave superiority still exists here, it just extends a bit more to one side rather than being perfectly centred. I highly doubt this was a "compromise", given that CK's dimensions are custom and not a pre-defined editor value.
2. The whole idea of the side attack path at the third is that it provides superior attack opportunity at the cost of overall positioning, on top of the sheer distance you'd have to walk your army to get in position.
3. Exactly what do you mean by "optimal"? The whole point of that path is to provide some harassment opportunity and additional movement around the corner bases. It wasn't designed to be a primary path; that's what the high ground is for.
Frankly, if you had taken a few seconds and read Superouman's original thread, you'd have a better understanding of the decisions that went into the map design.
Daybreak
It's already been pointed out, but the map does a terrible job of being "space efficient". Disagree with some of the design decisions if you want, but the idea that those decisions were in any way influenced by compromise for the sake of space efficiency is ridiculous in this case.
It's nice that you're trying to generate mapmaking discussion, Siskos, but maybe your time would be better spent on topics that provide real discussion, rather than causing people to gawk at the OP wondering if any real research and thought was put into it.
You haven't even come close to establishing that these parts aren't how the mapmakers intended them BTW.
I can't look into their mind? How would I know. I'd just say that I think it's unusual to say the least if it was intentional that you can't properly form a defensive concave at the top of your ramp in CK.
It hasn't been established that you can't establish a defensive concave, so this point can be disregarded as a strawman.
That is irrelevant to the point, this isn't about if these maps are good or not, this is about the fact that clearly, the layout of this map was done in some ways to fit the canvas rather than the canvas being made to fit the layout and that a square canvas to fit a layout in and therefore alter your map to is an arbitrary shape.
It is possible that by sheer cosmological coincidence it just happened to fit into a square canvas so tightly but let's be honest. This is most likely not what happened. The map was designed to fit into a square canvas rather than the canvas designed to fit around the map and a rectangular canvas is an arbitrary shape.
Those edges lining up perfectly is not a coincidence, and the ones that don't line up are like 2-4 hexes away. This would be a major coincidence if it occurred naturally. The map is designed to fit into am arbitrary rectangular shape with at no point being established that a rectangular shape is some-how the best way shape to fit the map in.
On February 08 2013 13:03 iamcaustic wrote: Cloud Kingdom
1. The ramp can be defended via the high ground that covers the natural. Concave superiority still exists here, it just extends a bit more to one side rather than being perfectly centred. I highly doubt this was a "compromise", given that CK's dimensions are custom and not a pre-defined editor value.
2. The whole idea of the side attack path at the third is that it provides superior attack opportunity at the cost of overall positioning, on top of the sheer distance you'd have to walk your army to get in position.
3. Exactly what do you mean by "optimal"? The whole point of that path is to provide some harassment opportunity and additional movement around the corner bases. It wasn't designed to be a primary path; that's what the high ground is for.
Frankly, if you had taken a few seconds and read Superouman's original thread, you'd have a better understanding of the decisions that went into the map design.
Daybreak
It's already been pointed out, but the map does a terrible job of being "space efficient". Disagree with some of the design decisions if you want, but the idea that those decisions were in any way influenced by compromise for the sake of space efficiency is ridiculous in this case.
It's nice that you're trying to generate mapmaking discussion, Siskos, but maybe your time would be better spent on topics that provide real discussion, rather than causing people to gawk at the OP wondering if any real research and thought was put into it.
Urgh, you could also actually debate the topic at hand instead of diving into two maps I used for illustrations.
All the things you pointed out, true or false, are completely irrelevant to the main point of the topic which is that there is no actual compelling reason to use a rectangular canvas as the shape is arbitrary and you can create your own canvas with NFZ's if you use them correctly.
Side note Siskos: disregarding arguments as irrelevant, because they mention maps that you used as illustrative of your points isn't exactly convincing, especially when they are perfectly valid points. That they happen to mention a specific map makes them perfectly relevant, by enabling us to see exactly how what we're talking about actually takes shape. You can't disregard that.
On February 08 2013 13:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Those edges lining up perfectly is not a coincidence, and the ones that don't line up are like 2-4 hexes away. This would be a major coincidence if it occurred naturally. The map is designed to fit into am arbitrary rectangular shape with at no point being established that a rectangular shape is some-how the best way shape to fit the map in.
Of course it's no coincidence, the game is designed around rectangular maps. Maps are going to be oriented such that the furthest edges line up with the edges of a rectangle, but the whole map is not pushing itself to make full use of a square, like you seem to suggest. You don't seem to be giving mapmakers any credit in this regard, really, and think we're all just striving to fit some foolish aesthetic notion, that it turns out doesn't even exist.
When you take a picture of something, like a dog, does it fill the edges of the camera frame perfectly? Of course not, that would be scary. That doesn't mean you can't zoom in until the outer edges of the dog's shape reach the edge of the photograph. Same thing here. Having extra space around the map arbitrarily would be dumb, so we trim it down, leaving some edges in contact with the map borders.
Whether or not rectangles are the best shape for a map isn't what I'm arguing, since I fully believe that a rectangle is not an end-all be-all shape. I do not, either, think that rectangles are ruining maps through some grand, unseen conspiracy like you do. I see it as a sufficient shape for the canvas on which I work, it doesn't need to be perfect. The shape of the canvas being perfect or not is only a problem once our mapmaking skills have been perfected, and, well, that will probably never happen.
You haven't even come close to establishing that these parts aren't how the mapmakers intended them BTW.
I can't look into their mind? How would I know. I'd just say that I think it's unusual to say the least if it was intentional that you can't properly form a defensive concave at the top of your ramp in CK.
It hasn't been established that you can't establish a defensive concave, so this point can be disregarded as a strawman.
That is irrelevant to the point, this isn't about if these maps are good or not, this is about the fact that clearly, the layout of this map was done in some ways to fit the canvas rather than the canvas being made to fit the layout and that a square canvas to fit a layout in and therefore alter your map to is an arbitrary shape.
It is possible that by sheer cosmological coincidence it just happened to fit into a square canvas so tightly but let's be honest. This is most likely not what happened. The map was designed to fit into a square canvas rather than the canvas designed to fit around the map and a rectangular canvas is an arbitrary shape.
Those edges lining up perfectly is not a coincidence, and the ones that don't line up are like 2-4 hexes away. This would be a major coincidence if it occurred naturally. The map is designed to fit into am arbitrary rectangular shape with at no point being established that a rectangular shape is some-how the best way shape to fit the map in.
On February 08 2013 13:03 iamcaustic wrote: Cloud Kingdom
1. The ramp can be defended via the high ground that covers the natural. Concave superiority still exists here, it just extends a bit more to one side rather than being perfectly centred. I highly doubt this was a "compromise", given that CK's dimensions are custom and not a pre-defined editor value.
2. The whole idea of the side attack path at the third is that it provides superior attack opportunity at the cost of overall positioning, on top of the sheer distance you'd have to walk your army to get in position.
3. Exactly what do you mean by "optimal"? The whole point of that path is to provide some harassment opportunity and additional movement around the corner bases. It wasn't designed to be a primary path; that's what the high ground is for.
Frankly, if you had taken a few seconds and read Superouman's original thread, you'd have a better understanding of the decisions that went into the map design.
Daybreak
It's already been pointed out, but the map does a terrible job of being "space efficient". Disagree with some of the design decisions if you want, but the idea that those decisions were in any way influenced by compromise for the sake of space efficiency is ridiculous in this case.
It's nice that you're trying to generate mapmaking discussion, Siskos, but maybe your time would be better spent on topics that provide real discussion, rather than causing people to gawk at the OP wondering if any real research and thought was put into it.
Urgh, you could also actually debate the topic at hand instead of diving into two maps I used for illustrations.
All the things you pointed out, true or false, are completely irrelevant to the main point of the topic which is that there is no actual compelling reason to use a rectangular canvas as the shape is arbitrary and you can create your own canvas with NFZ's if you use them correctly.
I mean there's no point to using the rectangular canvas when Van Gogh paints...
I think there's a reason to use the whole rectangle. A useless, wasted space, is a space of the map that isn't used. Why not design it so it can be used? You don't have to sacrifice the rest of the map. There's always something to be done slightly differently or added to use up the space.
[edit] Rewording square to rectangle, because I don't like square 2p maps.
On February 08 2013 13:31 NewSunshine wrote: Side note Siskos: disregarding arguments as irrelevant, because they mention maps that you used as illustrative of your points isn't exactly convincing, especially when they are perfectly valid points. That they happen to mention a specific map makes them perfectly relevant, by enabling us to see exactly how what we're talking about actually takes shape. You can't disregard that.
No, because they don't invalidate the point I'm making that the maps have been made to fit the canvas rather than the canvas to made the map. That's the only thing that's relevant to my point. They can be great, it can all be fantastic. But unless you can invalidate that they are made to fit the canvas it doesn't change my argument. I simply used the points to make compelling that they are most likely made to fit the canvas rather than in reverse.
Of course it's no coincidence, the game is designed around rectangular maps. Maps are going to be oriented such that the furthest edges line up with the edges of a rectangle, but the whole map is not pushing itself to make full use of a square, like you seem to suggest.
I'm not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that the shape of the canvas has influenced the shape of the map to some extend and that the shape of the canvas is arbitrary.
You don't seem to be giving mapmakers any credit in this regard, really, and think we're all just striving to fit some foolish aesthetic notion, that it turns out doesn't even exist.
When you take a picture of something, like a dog, does it fill the edges of the camera frame perfectly? Of course not, that would be scary. That doesn't mean you can't zoom in until the outer edges of the dog's shape reach the edge of the photograph. Same thing here. Having extra space around the map arbitrarily would be dumb, so we trim it down, leaving some edges in contact with the map borders.
And similarly, printing pictures on rectangles is arbitrary. You can print them on oval shapes, on any shapes. And in fact, a lot of works of photography and paintings have been on oval shapes and framed that way.
Whether or not rectangles are the best shape for a map isn't what I'm arguing, since I fully believe that a rectangle is not an end-all be-all shape. I do not, either, think that rectangles are ruining maps through some grand, unseen conspiracy like you do. I see it as a sufficient shape for the canvas on which I work, it doesn't need to be perfect. The shape of the canvas being perfect or not is only a problem once our mapmaking skills have been perfected, and, well, that will probably never happen.
I'm not saying they are ruining it. I'm saying they are influencing it and there is no reason to let it be influenced by that because you can use NFZ's carefully without running into pathing problems as long as you only use convex shapes with them.
You can create any canvas you want, there is no reason to limit yourself to the arbitrary shape of the rectangle.
For instance:
Two possible canvasses to cloud kingdom? Don't you think it a bit coincidental that supposedly a perfect rectangle by cosmological coincidence is the best ever? If you really set you to design your own canvas with intend you'd most likely get a very irregular shape.
You haven't even come close to establishing that these parts aren't how the mapmakers intended them BTW.
I can't look into their mind? How would I know. I'd just say that I think it's unusual to say the least if it was intentional that you can't properly form a defensive concave at the top of your ramp in CK.
It hasn't been established that you can't establish a defensive concave, so this point can be disregarded as a strawman.
That is irrelevant to the point, this isn't about if these maps are good or not, this is about the fact that clearly, the layout of this map was done in some ways to fit the canvas rather than the canvas being made to fit the layout and that a square canvas to fit a layout in and therefore alter your map to is an arbitrary shape.
It is possible that by sheer cosmological coincidence it just happened to fit into a square canvas so tightly but let's be honest. This is most likely not what happened. The map was designed to fit into a square canvas rather than the canvas designed to fit around the map and a rectangular canvas is an arbitrary shape.
Those edges lining up perfectly is not a coincidence, and the ones that don't line up are like 2-4 hexes away. This would be a major coincidence if it occurred naturally. The map is designed to fit into am arbitrary rectangular shape with at no point being established that a rectangular shape is some-how the best way shape to fit the map in.
On February 08 2013 13:03 iamcaustic wrote: Cloud Kingdom
1. The ramp can be defended via the high ground that covers the natural. Concave superiority still exists here, it just extends a bit more to one side rather than being perfectly centred. I highly doubt this was a "compromise", given that CK's dimensions are custom and not a pre-defined editor value.
2. The whole idea of the side attack path at the third is that it provides superior attack opportunity at the cost of overall positioning, on top of the sheer distance you'd have to walk your army to get in position.
3. Exactly what do you mean by "optimal"? The whole point of that path is to provide some harassment opportunity and additional movement around the corner bases. It wasn't designed to be a primary path; that's what the high ground is for.
Frankly, if you had taken a few seconds and read Superouman's original thread, you'd have a better understanding of the decisions that went into the map design.
Daybreak
It's already been pointed out, but the map does a terrible job of being "space efficient". Disagree with some of the design decisions if you want, but the idea that those decisions were in any way influenced by compromise for the sake of space efficiency is ridiculous in this case.
It's nice that you're trying to generate mapmaking discussion, Siskos, but maybe your time would be better spent on topics that provide real discussion, rather than causing people to gawk at the OP wondering if any real research and thought was put into it.
Urgh, you could also actually debate the topic at hand instead of diving into two maps I used for illustrations.
All the things you pointed out, true or false, are completely irrelevant to the main point of the topic which is that there is no actual compelling reason to use a rectangular canvas as the shape is arbitrary and you can create your own canvas with NFZ's if you use them correctly.
I mean there's no point to using the rectangular canvas when Van Gogh paints...
Indeed. The edges of a lot of paintings are useless filler with no real impact on the paining. However van Gogh didn't go out to design his sunflowers to be as rectangular as possible to fit into the canvas with as little wasted space as possible. I'm sure you can create some cool flowers that fit into a rectangle nicely. But it wouldn't be his original intend, and that's sort of what mapmakers are doing.
I think there's a reason to use the whole rectangle. A useless, wasted space, is a space of the map that isn't used. Why not design it so it can be used?
Because in a lot of cases it does require you to shift the layout of your map around to the point it is detrimental. Would Ohana be a better map if the area behind the third became pathable in some way? Probably not.
You don't have to sacrifice the rest of the map. There's always something to be done slightly differently or added to use up the space.
Well, how would you make Ohana better by using that space?
On February 08 2013 13:20 SiskosGoatee wrote: Urgh, you could also actually debate the topic at hand instead of diving into two maps I used for illustrations.
All the things you pointed out, true or false, are completely irrelevant to the main point of the topic which is that there is no actual compelling reason to use a rectangular canvas as the shape is arbitrary and you can create your own canvas with NFZ's if you use them correctly.
Frankly, your illustrations didn't illustrate your point at all. Your point is also a moot one, as there isn't a compelling reason not to use a rectangular canvas as the shape. You tried to make a compelling reason with those maps, except those examples are complete garbage. The whole point of this thread falls on the following:
On February 07 2013 23:47 SiskosGoatee wrote: I do feel these examples illustrate how maps become awkward, primarily at their edges, because people try to force them into rectangular canvasses a bit too much. I mean, what's the purpose? The only real reason I can think of of why you'd limit yourself to such an arbitrary shape is eliminating dead space for excessive air and drop usage. Which can easily be fixed in a lot of cases by no fly blockers.
I don't think the axiom of efficiently using space serves any real purpose and may have to be re-addressed.
With this entire premise torn apart, I'll conclude the discussion for you: the "axiom" of efficiently using space does not have to be re-addressed, especially since it is ignored on many SC2 maps anyway (which kind of stops it from being an axiom, don't you think?).
On February 08 2013 13:20 SiskosGoatee wrote: Urgh, you could also actually debate the topic at hand instead of diving into two maps I used for illustrations.
All the things you pointed out, true or false, are completely irrelevant to the main point of the topic which is that there is no actual compelling reason to use a rectangular canvas as the shape is arbitrary and you can create your own canvas with NFZ's if you use them correctly.
Frankly, your illustrations didn't illustrate your point at all. Your point is also a moot one, as there isn't a compelling reason not to use a rectangular canvas as the shape. You tried to make a compelling reason with those maps, except those examples are complete garbage. The whole point of this thread falls on the following:
No, I didn't. I used the examples to demonstrate that the maps were made to fit the canvas rather than the canvas was made to fill the map and I'm pretty sure I've since convinced most people of that point.
With this entire premise torn apart, I'll conclude the discussion for you: the "axiom" of efficiently using space does not have to be re-addressed, especially since it is ignored on many SC2 maps anyway (which kind of stops it from being an axiom, don't you think?).
No, it's not ignored on Daybreak either. The same critical points apply, check this:
Again same height. If you do not realize what I mean with filling up the canvas then you don't understand my point. Do you or do you not acknowledge that Daybreak was most likely designed to fit into its canvas rather than its canvas designed to fit around daybreak?
Even Ohana which doesn't do this on the side does do this on the top and bottom:
Again, Ohana is designed to fit into its canvas rather than its canvas designed to fit around Ohana.
The problem with this appraoch is that the canvas of none of these maps was actually designed. It's an elementary shape the editor gives you. It's as arbitrary as deciding that all bases should be perfect squares. Sure, you can make some cool maps with that but in the end you can do so much more if you choose not to limit yourself to that idea. Just as you can do so much more if you choose not to limit yourself to rectangular canvasses.
Oh my God, mapmakers have arbitrary points on the map they actually want to touch the playable edges. I've been completely convinced that they restricted themselves to fit these bounds for the sake of space efficiency and that the design of these maps have been negatively impacted as compensation. Your OP was so spot-on, how could I have not noticed?
Since I'm sure you don't appreciate my sarcasm as much as I do, no, these maps weren't designed to fit into the canvas. Who the hell picks as random of map bounds as 132x136 (CK) or 128x135 (Ohana) and then tells themselves "All right, my map MUST fit into this"? No one, that's who. By the way, that Ohana example? You can clearly see the terrain at the third extends right to the edge while the natural and main leave some space. If you're harping at how the terrain edges seem kind of flat despite only 1 of those 3 points actually touching the edge of the map, take a good look at the other outer edge of the main; it's super flat despite there being a good 4 units of extra space before you hit the playable map bounds.
Let me know when you're done being ridiculous and making up bunk "evidence" to support a flawed theory.
On February 08 2013 15:29 iamcaustic wrote: Oh my God, mapmakers have arbitrary points on the map they actually want to touch the playable edges. I've been completely convinced that they restricted themselves to fit these bounds for the sake of space efficiency and that the design of these maps have been negatively impacted as compensation. Your OP was so spot-on, how could I have not noticed?
Thanks, now admit you've been arguing against a point I never made for the last 3 posts or so as I said before.
Since I'm sure you don't appreciate my sarcasm as much as I do, no, these maps weren't designed to fit into the canvas. Who the hell picks as random of map bounds as 132x136 (CK) or 128x135 (Ohana) and then tells themselves "All right, my map MUST fit into this"? No one, that's who. By the way, that Ohana example? You can clearly see the terrain at the third extends right to the edge while the natural and main leave some space. If you're harping at how the terrain edges seem kind of flat despite only 1 of those 3 points actually touching the edge of the map, take a good look at the other outer edge of the main; it's super flat despite there being a good 4 units of extra space before you hit the playable map bounds.
I never said they were designed to fit into a size, I said they were designed to fit into a shape. It's too much a coincidence how neatly almost every map fits into a rectangle with very little space leftover.
The amount of space Ohana leaves over is faaar too little to be a coincidence. All these maps would most likely look differently if the editor decided to give us an oval canvas for whatever reason. The shape of the canvas influences the shape of the map and the shape of the canvas is arbitrary.
Let me know when you're done being ridiculous and making up bunk "evidence" to support a flawed theory.
You are completely out of your mind if you deny that there is some influence going on of the shape of the canvas influencing the design of maps here.
On February 08 2013 15:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: I never said they were designed to fit into a size, I said they were designed to fit into a shape. It's too much a coincidence how neatly almost every map fits into a rectangle with very little space leftover.
132x136, as in Cloud Kingdom, is both a size and a shape.
On February 08 2013 15:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: You are completely out of your mind if you deny that there is some influence going on of the shape of the canvas influencing the design of maps here.
An observation that, though true, makes no difference. It's as though you're arguing about why the sky is blue - you can win the argument convincingly, but even then, so what?
On February 08 2013 15:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: I never said they were designed to fit into a size, I said they were designed to fit into a shape. It's too much a coincidence how neatly almost every map fits into a rectangle with very little space leftover.
132x136, as in Cloud Kingdom, is both a size and a shape.
No, it's a size, the shape here is a rectangle. Making a rectangle larger or smaller doesn't change that it's a rectangle, shearing it or twisting it does stop it from being one.
On February 08 2013 15:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:You are completely out of your mind if you deny that there is some influence going on of the shape of the canvas influencing the design of maps here.
An observation that, though true, makes no difference. It's as though you're arguing about why the sky is blue - you can win the argument convincingly, but even then, so what?
Because the shape of the canvas is arbitrary. It's quite simple.
A: The shape of the canvas is arbitrary B: The design of the map is influenced by the shape of the canvas C: Therefore, the design of the map is influenced by arbitrariness rather than planned thought.
And as I said, there are definite consequences to this which could be perceived as unwanted such as the inability to form a concave on top of CK's natural ramp. I'm pretty sure that the creator didn't go like 'Gee, I want to make a map where it is impossible to have a good concave on top of the ramp, let's go set out to do that.', the inability to do that is a byproduct from the canvas. I highly doubt this was one of the original intentions when set out to make the map on paper.
On February 08 2013 16:06 SiskosGoatee wrote:Because the shape of the canvas is arbitrary. It's quite simple.
A: The shape of the canvas is arbitrary B: The design of the map is influenced by the shape of the canvas C: Therefore, the design of the map is influenced by arbitrariness rather than planned thought.
It isn't arbitrary, for one. Why are pixels square? Why are games designed so consistently around rectangles? Nothing arbitrary about it, it's purely practical.
Point C is wrong. I don't know how you plan to continue arguing that one.
On February 08 2013 16:06 SiskosGoatee wrote: And as I said, there are definite consequences to this which could be perceived as unwanted such as the inability to form a concave on top of CK's natural ramp. I'm pretty sure that the creator didn't go like 'Gee, I want to make a map where it is impossible to have a good concave on top of the ramp, let's go set out to do that.', the inability to do that is a byproduct from the canvas. I highly doubt this was one of the original intentions when set out to make the map on paper.
I've already explained why this is wrong. You're severely discrediting Superouman's skills. If the result that is Cloud Kingdom wasn't exactly as he wanted it to be, it wouldn't have been that way. He created an article on the creation of Cloud Kingdom at one point. Did you know it was, at one point, a mirror symmetry map?
On February 08 2013 16:06 SiskosGoatee wrote:Because the shape of the canvas is arbitrary. It's quite simple.
A: The shape of the canvas is arbitrary B: The design of the map is influenced by the shape of the canvas C: Therefore, the design of the map is influenced by arbitrariness rather than planned thought.
It isn't arbitrary, for one. Why are pixels square? Why are games designed so consistently around rectangles? Nothing arbitrary about it, it's purely practical.
It's practical with regards to implementation of a game engine. Not with regards to game design.
For instance, most tabletop RPG's over the last years have switched from the standard square grid to a hex grid. A hex grid is just more practical in the end. I'd say that designing StarCraft around a hex grid rather than a square grid also would have its benefits.
Point C is wrong. I don't know how you plan to continue arguing that one.
It's not a point, it's a logical conclusion. If you think C does not follow from A and B you need a crashcourse in logic.
On February 08 2013 16:06 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've already explained why this is wrong. You're severely discrediting Superouman's skills. If the result that is Cloud Kingdom wasn't exactly as he wanted it to be, it wouldn't have been that way. He created an article on the creation of Cloud Kingdom at one point. Did you know it was, at one point, a mirror symmetry map?
Like I said, if this was actually all his plan then it would be cosmological coincidence that it falls so neatly into a rectangle. I doubt the statistical probability of that. The map was designed to fit into the canvas. And you already admitted to the obviousness of that so you already admit that it wasn't his plan to make the shape like that but he had to to fit it into the canvas.
In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if he never even considered the fact until the map was released that the area on top of that ramp leads to the difficulties in forming a concave. And if he did consider it it wasn't an intention but a concession because again, it would be a cosmological coincidence that his ramp design how he all wanted it from the start just happened to magically make the map fit tightly into a rectangle.
On February 08 2013 16:34 SiskosGoatee wrote: It's not a point, it's a logical conclusion. If you think C does not follow from A and B you need a crashcourse in logic.
I call it a point because there is not an acceptable transition between the three. The first point is practical, as I've said. The second point is an observation, whose correctness I concede. Point C disregards, completely, the mapmaker himself, and implies that his design choices are all rigidly governed by the rectangular border, which is wrong. See Daybreak, see Ohana, for 2 decent examples.
On February 08 2013 16:06 SiskosGoatee wrote: Like I said, if this was actually all his plan then it would be cosmological coincidence that it falls so neatly into a rectangle. I doubt the statistical probability of that. The map was designed to fit into the canvas. And you already admitted to the obviousness of that so you already admit that it wasn't his plan to make the shape like that but he had to to fit it into the canvas.
In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if he never even considered the fact until the map was released that the area on top of that ramp leads to the difficulties in forming a concave. And if he did consider it it wasn't an intention but a concession because again, it would be a cosmological coincidence that his ramp design how he all wanted it from the start just happened to magically make the map fit tightly into a rectangle.
Your abundant use of the phrase "cosmological coincidence" suggests that the probability of whatever you're describing sound remote or minute, when it isn't. Maps have always been rectangular. Continuing to design maps in a rectangular fashion, you develop a better skillset for creating well-crafted rectangular maps, as is only logical. It's not at all "cosmological coincidence", nor is it a concession. It is a development of a skill in reflex to a limitation. Any shape of map has a limit to it, each requiring a different sense of proportion and gestalt to succeed with. Rectangles just happen to be practical from a programming standpoint.
On February 08 2013 16:34 SiskosGoatee wrote: It's not a point, it's a logical conclusion. If you think C does not follow from A and B you need a crashcourse in logic.
I call it a point because there is not an acceptable transition between the three. The first point is practical, as I've said. The second point is an observation, whose correctness I concede. Point C disregards, completely, the mapmaker himself, and implies that his design choices are all rigidly governed by the rectangular border, which is wrong. See Daybreak, see Ohana, for 2 decent examples.
You honestly don't see the logic of.
A: x is influenced by y. B: y is has arbitrary elements. C: therefore, x is influenced by arbitrary elements
This isn't a point, this is a logical conclusion which follows from the premises. If you accept the premises the conclusion follows, there's nothing you can do about it.
Your abundant use of the phrase "cosmological coincidence" suggests that the probability of whatever you're describing sound remote or minute, when it isn't. Maps have always been rectangular. Continuing to design maps in a rectangular fashion, you develop a better skillset for creating well-crafted rectangular maps, as is only logical. It's not at all "cosmological coincidence", nor is it a concession. It is a development of a skill in reflex to a limitation. Any shape of map has a limit to it, each requiring a different sense of proportion and gestalt to succeed with. Rectangles just happen to be practical from a programming standpoint.
So again, you admit that they have been designed specifically to be rectangular while you implicitly denied it the last time around.
Like I said (and to which you agree), the map is made to fit into a rectangular canvas, the canvas is not designed to fit around the map. The fact that we choose a rectangular canvas is arbitrary and based on tradition, something we once decided without actually thinking about it and continue to perpetuate up to this day simply because no one raised the issue while other shapes might be more optimal. Therefore, the map is designed around a self imposed limitation that it has to fit tightly into a rectangular canvas with no apparent reasoning behind it.
The only reason for it with respect to gameplay and not aesthetics is dead space management, and it has already been shown that NFZ's can solve this issue without bugging out if placed correctly. There is no reason to limit yourself to a rectangular canvas. People just do it because they've always done it and never bothered to ask themselves why they do it like with so many things. Like for instance, for years all ports on computers were always at the back, people just did it like that even though there was no reason, they just didn't question it until someone had the brilliant idea of putting USB ports and audio ports at the front of a computer case and it caught on massively. Just like that, we limit ourselves to a square canvas because no one ever bothered to consider that there are other shapes. NFZ's allow you to create a canvas in whatever weird shape you desire. Limiting yourself to a square canvas is like limiting yourself in a map to make all the mains perfect squares. I'm sure it can create some good maps but in the end it's still an arbitrary restriction you put on yourself that has no compelling reason for it and more can be achieved if you rid yourself of it.
Using space efficiently is a legacy of broodwar where the map sizes couldn't be changed and map-makers had to squeeze everything they wanted to do into the map size. Yes the rectangular map shape is arbitrary, what's wrong with it? And we can't use no-fly zones to cover large areas because they are extremely buggy, i already tried that.
The three points the op pointed are intentional. The main ramp is close to the map bounds so it's far away from the nat choke and prevent free forcefield lock. The highground path leading gives a better attacking position than running up the ramp. The side path leading to the corner expand is there to give a small counter attack path.
Concerning the pieces of terrain passing the map bounds, they intentionally do, you can see that i put doodads to show that this area is unpassable.
Concerning the map size (it's 126x132 btw), i started with 128x128 and then i reduced or enlarged to width and height to reduce unnecessary air space. You shouldn't adapt the layout to the map size but do the reverse, adapting the map size to your layout, sc2 gives this luxury which broodwar didn't have.
On February 08 2013 19:55 Superouman wrote: Using space efficiently is a legacy of broodwar where the map sizes couldn't be changed and map-makers had to squeeze everything they wanted to do into the map size. Yes the rectangular map shape is arbitrary, what's wrong with it? And we can't use no-fly zones to cover large areas because they are extremely buggy, i already tried that.
The three points the op pointed are intentional. The main ramp is close to the map bounds so it's far away from the nat choke and prevent free forcefield lock. The highground path leading gives a better attacking position than running up the ramp. The side path leading to the corner expand is there to give a small counter attack path.
Concerning the pieces of terrain passing the map bounds, they intentionally do, you can see that i put doodads to show that this area is unpassable.
Concerning the map size (it's 126x132 btw), i started with 128x128 and then i reduced or enlarged to width and height to reduce unnecessary air space. You shouldn't adapt the layout to the map size but do the reverse, adapting the map size to your layout, sc2 gives this luxury which broodwar didn't have.
And Superouman appears to end the thread that should have ended when I first posted with similar statements. The OP, while possibly benign in intent, just seems to suffer from a lot of fundamental mapmaking knowledge.
To Siskos: I haven't bothered to read your subsequent responses. I apologize, as I've always followed through when debunking your arguments in the past (both on TL and Reddit), but in this case there isn't even anything to debate, unless I feel like wasting a lot of time for nothing over an entirely fabricated mapmaking issue. Furthermore, reading Superouman's post makes me feel even less inclined to waste my time, even if I did have time to kill.
EDIT: Oh shit, I misquoted the map bounds for Cloud Kingdom. I was thinking of Antiga's map bounds for some reason. Good eye, Superouman.
Yes the rectangular map shape is arbitrary, what's wrong with it? And we can't use no-fly zones to cover large areas because they are extremely buggy, i already tried that.
THere are ways to place them on the edges where they don't bug and get people stuck. I remember there was some Blizz post about it, the major trick is letting the hard edges not overlap and touch exactly.
What's wrong with it is that it's an arbitrary limitation which like any limitation is a limitation which doesn't serve a reason. Limitations in the end always limit varieties, but some limitations have a clear purpose, another limition people tend to use ismaking more than 2 bases on each map, that one has a clear purpose, this one doesn't.
The three points the op pointed are intentional. The main ramp is close to the map bounds so it's far away from the nat choke and prevent free forcefield lock.
That doesn't speak about the lack of forming a concave above. If the map wasn't a square canvas it could both be far away and allow for a concave.
The highground path leading gives a better attacking position than running up the ramp. The side path leading to the corner expand is there to give a small counter attack path.
Fair enough, but again, it's a major coincidence how tightly it fits into the canvas. As in, it might not be the most optimal form to achieve what you wanted to achieve, there might be a form which expresses this idea even better.
Concerning the pieces of terrain passing the map bounds, they intentionally do, you can see that i put doodads to show that this area is unpassable
Of course, but it still fits into a rectangle so tightly that it's obvious that the map was designed to fit into the canvass rather than the canvass being designed to fit around the map.
Concerning the map size (it's 126x132 btw), i started with 128x128 and then i reduced or enlarged to width and height to reduce unnecessary air space. You shouldn't adapt the layout to the map size but do the reverse, adapting the map size to your layout, sc2 gives this luxury which broodwar didn't have.
Absolutely, I personally just start at 256/256 and afterwards shrink. But I feel we should go even further and not only adapt the size of the canvass to the map but also the shape. Which is another nice luxury usage of NFZ's give you. There are ways to minimize and outright eliminate the pathing bugs if you place them right.
On February 08 2013 19:55 Superouman wrote: Using space efficiently is a legacy of broodwar where the map sizes couldn't be changed and map-makers had to squeeze everything they wanted to do into the map size. Yes the rectangular map shape is arbitrary, what's wrong with it? And we can't use no-fly zones to cover large areas because they are extremely buggy, i already tried that.
The three points the op pointed are intentional. The main ramp is close to the map bounds so it's far away from the nat choke and prevent free forcefield lock. The highground path leading gives a better attacking position than running up the ramp. The side path leading to the corner expand is there to give a small counter attack path.
Concerning the pieces of terrain passing the map bounds, they intentionally do, you can see that i put doodads to show that this area is unpassable.
Concerning the map size (it's 126x132 btw), i started with 128x128 and then i reduced or enlarged to width and height to reduce unnecessary air space. You shouldn't adapt the layout to the map size but do the reverse, adapting the map size to your layout, sc2 gives this luxury which broodwar didn't have.
And Superouman appears to end the thread that should have ended when I first posted with similar statements. The OP, while possibly benign in intent, just seems to suffer from a lot of fundamental mapmaking knowledge.
To Siskos: I haven't bothered to read your subsequent responses. I apologize, as I've always followed through when debunking your arguments in the past (both on TL and Reddit), but in this case there isn't even anything to debate, unless I feel like wasting a lot of time for nothing over an entirely fabricated mapmaking issue. Furthermore, reading Superouman's post makes me feel even less inclined to waste my time, even if I did have time to kill.
EDIT: Oh shit, I misquoted the map bounds for Cloud Kingdom. I was thinking of Antiga's map bounds for some reason. Good eye, Superouman.
That you think superouman's points disprove my original point in any way shape or form proves you never understood it. It isn't about Cloud Kindom and like I said, this isn't about specific maps. Everything could've been completely intentional about CK and that still does not invalidate the point I was trying to make and if you think otherwise you never understood it. I could've used any map as an example, I just choose CK because it's very well known. That you also think that Daybreak applies less to my point than CK proves you don't understand the point I'm trying to make, it isn't about filling up the canvas as much as possible in case you wonder.
If the shape of the map wouldn't be a geometrical shape, how could you tell you can walk on this area and not this one? Pro players don't even remember if a map has all spawn allowed or not, i don't want to think about players who don't play a lot. I would be a mess for the players and developpers
On February 08 2013 21:35 Superouman wrote: If the shape of the map wouldn't be a geometrical shape, how could you tell you can walk on this area and not this one? Pro players don't even remember if a map has all spawn allowed or not, i don't want to think about players who don't play a lot. I would be a mess for the players and developpers
Well, you can usually clearly indicate with doodats what the edge of a map is. And this only applies to airspace. I really don't think unusual airspace is a problem to novice players at all. Memorizing you can't fly over those huge trees on the edge of a map is like memorizing that the third geyser on Atlantis is rich.
Arcade mappers can use triggers and custom minimap images, the jerks. Our problem is that the only way to adjust air pathing is buggy (unusable). Otherwise we could make any shape we want. (Obviously.)
In fact you could use these things anyway in a melee map, it wouldn't change the game at all.
I agree w/ barrin, some other shape boundaries should be implemented by blizzard (for melee maps).. it probably wouldn't even be that hard (you could leave the actual map as a rectangle, just the ability to affect the bounds is what's needed). Triangle would be especially nice so that 3p maps can finally be perfectly balanced (there's always been the problem of differing airspaces w/ 3p maps..).
On February 09 2013 07:30 Fatam wrote: I agree w/ barrin, some other shape boundaries should be implemented by blizzard (for melee maps).. it probably wouldn't even be that hard (you could leave the actual map as a rectangle, just the ability to affect the bounds is what's needed). Triangle would be especially nice so that 3p maps can finally be perfectly balanced (there's always been the problem of differing airspaces w/ 3p maps..).
Yeah, just being able to basically draw the canvas, maybe as a vector which of course automatically implies a no bugged NFZ would be great.