[D] Efficiently using space?

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:

[image loading]

- 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.

[image loading]

- 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.

BoggieMan February 08 2013 00:05. Posts 460

Profile Blog #

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.

Barrin United States. February 08 2013 00:48. Posts 4196

Profile Blog #

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?

---

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

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." -Voltaire

SiskosGoatee Albania. February 08 2013 01:10. Posts 930

Profile Blog #

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.

Uvantak Uruguay. February 08 2013 01:31. Posts 300

Profile #

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'm Kantuva | Mapmaker | To find any of my maps search them by KTV

Unsane Canada. February 08 2013 02:15. Posts 128

Profile #

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'.

Last edit: 2013-02-08 02:16:45

"What is the plural of y'all? All y'all." -Day9

SiskosGoatee Albania. February 08 2013 02:24. Posts 930

Profile Blog #

Well, if you look at Ohana, it doesn't try to fit itself as forcibly and tightly as possible into a rectangular canvas:

[image loading]

SigmaFiE United States. February 08 2013 02:33. Posts 287

Profile Blog #

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.

Dream Forge Maps -- http://dreamforgemaps.net/ -- admin@dreamforgemaps.net -- Team Leader -- Twitter: @SigmaFiE

SiskosGoatee Albania. February 08 2013 02:41. Posts 930

Profile Blog #

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.

Gfire United States. February 08 2013 02:59. Posts 1479

Profile #

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.

Last edit: 2013-02-08 03:12:36

ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire

Barrin United States. February 08 2013 03:11. Posts 4196

Profile Blog #

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.

You haven't even come close to establishing that these parts aren't how the mapmakers intended them BTW. 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.

What is 'the best thing possible'?

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.

Nor have you established that the rectangular shape of the map requires this to be like this. He really could move that stuff around.

- 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?

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.

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?

- 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.

I'm not saying the proportions are perfect but now that you point it out I've seen so many worse ways to make an out-of-the-way path to an out-of-the-way base (actually this is my favorite now, what a badass).

Which encourages the defending player to have good map awareness and/or extra defense.

This isn't inherently bad...
(1) What would you do differently?
(2) Why is that way better?

- 2/3: I feel this area in general just doesn't flow in a very natural way.

Pure rhetoric in opinion form. This is not the best way to convince people..

Last edit: 2013-02-08 03:12:28

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." -Voltaire

Barrin United States. February 08 2013 03:17. Posts 4196

Profile Blog #

I agree, everything is so squished. Branching "out" into the edges of the map (btw the biggest problem most people have with Ohana is how much it branches "in") encourages map control and increases the difficulty of attaining it (among other things) basically.

Last edit: 2013-02-08 03:19:50

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." -Voltaire

SiskosGoatee Albania. February 08 2013 03:46. Posts 930

Profile Blog #

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.

Show nested quote +

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.

Show nested quote +

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.'

Show nested quote +

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.

EatThePath United States. February 08 2013 03:51. Posts 2439

Profile Blog #

Regarding CK:

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.

Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE

SiskosGoatee Albania. February 08 2013 03:57. Posts 930

Profile Blog #

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.

EatThePath United States. February 08 2013 04:01. Posts 2439

Profile Blog #

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.

Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE

SiskosGoatee Albania. February 08 2013 04:03. Posts 930

Profile Blog #

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.

EatThePath United States. February 08 2013 04:06. Posts 2439

Profile Blog #

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.

Last edit: 2013-02-08 04:06:42

Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE

SidianTheBard United States. February 08 2013 04:32. Posts 966

Profile #

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.

-

Last edit: 2013-02-08 04:36:54

NewSunshine United States. February 08 2013 04:33. Posts 1011

Profile #