First off I want to say that TLMC4 had more "almost there" entries than any other TLMC. There were a lot interesting ideas that were put forward that had issues in one way or another. We think that if you take the time to revise those maps in accordance with the feedback below then those maps would be viable tournament picks. Of course we didn't have time to do a mass feedback/revision week in this contest, so we had to judge maps more or less as is.
The feedback provided here is essentially a summary of the collective feedback that TL Strategy had on the maps. Before you come asking questions about your map specifically, make sure you've read and thought about whether these things applied to your map or now.
Firstly, let's talk about some general things that everyone should be doing in the contest.
90 Degree Overviews Yes, slanted overviews look cooler. But for the purposes of judging distances properly we really need 90 degree overviews. I know that if I put this in the ruleset that people will still submit slanted overviews (because there were multiple people submitting 2p maps this time around...) so I'm not going to make it a hard rule. But it does greatly assist the judging team in being able to quickly assess your map and gives it the best possible chance to be considered. It's worth pointing out that by submitting slanted overviews you're not penalised (e.g. Uvantak's submissions both were slightly slanted) but it may have meant that some of our initial assessment was misguided -- don't let that happen to your map!
Including Spawn Positions Often it's really easy to tell where the spawn locations are on a map, but if you're doing something nonstandard it doesn't hurt to include the position of the spawns. The reason is simple and I'll explain it through example. Take Providence by IeZaeL, there's no way the judges would have known where the bottom left and upper right spawns except for the fact that he included the location of the spawns. Another example, Into the Wilds has not totally clear spawn positions -- sure we assume that the spawns are in the corners, but that information is 100% clear. tldr; to give you map the best shot include spawn positions.
Why did my map get cut early? Two main reasons. First, the proportions are off. By this I mean that your allocation of space is not at the standard we expect for the competition. Vast open blank areas, ridiculously inaccessible naturals/thirds, huge distances between bases etc. are all proportion issues which are things to be worked on for future seasons. This doesn't mean we hate innovation, its just one of those things that amateur map makers are highly inexperienced in and need more practice. Many top mappers started off making those mistakes too, over time you'll get a better grasp of appropriate distances.
The second main reason is that the map is obviously imbalanced. This was less of an issue this time around but is still one of the reasons maps get cut early. If your going to introduce an obvious imbalance into your map (i.e. double entrance naturals, multiple entrance mains, thirds a long distance away) then you need to have really thought through the implications of that concept and made adjustments to your map to reflect that. The maps that are cut early clearly didn't make those adjustments and hence were cut.
Rule of thumb: if you're still an inexperienced mapper adhere to the rules and try to understand what maps standard maps standard. Understand all the rules first, then you can create maps which break them. Breaking the rules first is a recipe for failure. Uvantak is a great example of this, he's someone who has progressively improved over many seasons of TLMC and he's done this through executing standard-ish maps at an increasingly high level. Do the same and maybe one day you'll get a double placing in a TLMC!
The following issues relate more to the maps that were up for finalist consideration but did not make it for one reason or another.
Nat2Nat distances By now it should be well established that less than 40s for a nat2nat distance isn't going to work. I appreciate that with 4p maps that this is difficult (close spawns often end up breaking this rule), but you should be designing around this restriction. The reason why 40s is the minimum we'll accept (and even then, ideally its 43s+) is because the rush distance becomes too short making 2 base play stronger and making it more difficult to secure later bases. Remember: most attacks are going to travel from the natural to the natural or third to the natural so that is the effective attack distance -- the main2main distance is mostly for scouting purposes (unless you did a in-base natural, of course).
Some maps which failed to do this include Fragments of Time (close spawn), Nature Spirit (horizontal spawn) and Into the Wilds (all spawn). You'll know if your map fell into this trap since you needed to submit that information in your application.
Reasonable Naturals One question everyone should be asking upon creating a map is "can Protoss FFE here?". If the answer is yes, the the natural design is reasonable. While not solely a Protoss issue (all races like standard naturals for a variety of reasons) this question is sufficient to resolve all difficulties races might encounter. This is a more common mistake in maps cut early, but also persisted in some of the maps which were trying to make the concept work. Unfortunately, adding collapsible rocks is not sufficient to make a two sided natural work (as there's no real way for a Protoss to collapse one side, thus failing the FFE test).
Maps which tried to make this concept work include Dominion Rose, Cactus Valley and Dragon's Nest. We feel that if you're going to make this concept work, more considerations of the difficulties that the double entrance nat to be reflected in the design of the map.
Blink Stalkers Yeonsu proved that Blink Stalkers are mighty powerful. Future maps need to learn the lessons that we learned on Yeonsu and not repeat those mistakes. If a main (or main/nat) is given too much exposure to Blink Stalkers then bad things are going to happen. As such you should be limiting the Blink Stalker accessible ground in each main to limit their strength. Additionally main/nat need to be positioned so that the defenders travel time (to defend blink stalkers) is shorter than the attackers, else the attack gains too much of an edge.
1FF Ramp Mains PvP and ZvZ rely on ramps having one forcefield width -- in ZvZ this means that the ramp can be blocked with 2 Queens which means that some of the strength of ling/bane is mitigated. Additionally, same height main-naturals can also cause many problems if they are not treated with extreme care. While this kind of feature alone would not disqualify a map (since ramps can easily be changed) it's sad that this basic element of gameplay is still overlooked by mappers.
Low ground spawns don't work, ever. Not so much of an issue this season. But was a reason why some maps got cut early. The concept just doesn't work. This concept was extensively tested when we were considering the original version of Keru. We found that it gave aggressive strategies far too much power and once a player lost control of the ramp the game was over. In addition warp in was incredibly strong in addition to bunker contains.
High ground can be very powerful, careful where you put it High ground is often undervalued as a strategic point on the map. I assume this is largely due to people thinking that the lack of a high ground mechanic (aside from vision) isn't actually that big of a deal. Well, unfortunately it is. High ground can be a very powerful strategic position -- the old IPL map Darkness Falls hinted at the strength of high ground when the fourth bases could be taken by a Terran and with PF support secure a strong position against Zergs. This would offer protection for their rally point and provide a strong staging ground for future attacks.
Two maps which had high ground that was too strong were Nimbus (which suffered from the issues described above when Terrans spawned counter clockwise to a Zerg) and Nature Spirit. Let's talk a little more about Nature Spirit since that's something that we discovered during testing that we hadn't encountered before.
The high ground at 12 and 6 proved to be much to powerful in testing. While we knew that high ground over looking a natural such as in Lost Temple was broken, it turns out the same thing is true with third bases (at least in this instance). This is unintuitive, since you'd expect Zergs (or Protoss) to be able to defend against Terran drops controlling the high ground by the time the game has progressed to a third base. But as Medivacs are such a staple of Terran armies it means that Terrans aren't deviating from their normal strategies in a significant way while Zergs and Protoss need to do something quite radical (like 2 base mutalisks or rushing spire after three base leaving them open to a host of other Terran attacks). Ultimately because the medivac is so core to the Terran army and that around 8 supply of units can shut down a full mining base with little counter play this feature used around thirds is broken.
Accessibility of thirds This is already somewhat covered by map proportions, but this is still used at a high level for no good reason. At this point in SC2's life we're at a point where the game revolves around third bases in the Zerg matchups. Often this means Zerg players defending off two base plays from Protoss and defending from Terran harass while doing what they can to limit Terran expanding. Moreover if Zergs are allowed free thirds on these maps, then the pendulum swings the other way and makes it incredibly difficult for Protoss/Terran to take thirds; which in turn just encourages players to play off of two base. If you have a reason to break this metagame then you need to have an exceptionally good reason and to be able to execute this idea at the highest level. Extreme care needs to be taken to ensure that Zerg players are not unfairly disadvantaged, which in most cases is just ignored.
I appreciate that the mapping community wants to try an innovate, but your innovations should be focusing on the map between the two players and not the first three bases. Play with fourths, play with the center, see what can and can't work there... but only extremely well executed maps which have made calculated decisions to compensate can break the standard three base mold.
Maps which fell into this trap include Exodus and Coriolis (which did at least try to mitigate some of the issues by using a gold base, but not to an extent sufficient enough for the strategy team be sure it wasn't broken).
Rotational imbalances This more often than not relates to the previous issue in terms of making thirds accessible. Another issue which makes them inaccessible is a lack of appreciation for rotational spawn imbalances. But rotational imbalances extend beyond that to include differences in medivac vulnerability, fourth accessibility and blink surface areas. To some extent we're happy to accept some degree of rotational imbalance, so long as the advantage isn't overwhelming.
The great chasm of nothing This also ties in with the third base discussion, it feels like map makers have become so fixated on the layout of the first three bases that the rest of the map feels like it is thrown together as an afterthought. Large expanses of "empty" space don't really do anything good for the game. Alterzim at the moment has large expanses of open ground in the center of the map and I don't need to tell you what impact that has on the game as games go long. The point of this is that the best maps go beyond just designing for the first three bases and continue to design the map to ensure play on the map continues to be interesting as the game goes long. Best example of this is Cloud Kingdom which not only had an interesting three base setup, but after that the 4th/5th base encouraged interesting troop movement and continued to make the game interesting (well, as interesting as BL/infestor can be).
2-in-1 maps trying too hard We saw a lot of 2-in-1 maps do the following in this contest. One set of spawns would be very standard and normally very playable. The other set of spawns would be some ungodly mess doing things that break the game. If the other set of spawns were standardarised these maps would have easily been up for contention. You don't need to be doing crazy things with the first three bases to make a map interesting!! Stop invalidating all your hard work in crafting a map by slapping on two spawns which are unplayable.
Don't make your map too chokey/restricted in movement Chokepoints are map features which we're all accustomed to because of forcefield. The strength of forcefield in small chokes is such that the best maps must account for this. This typically means sparring use of small chokes to create strategic areas of the map to do battle, as opposed to putting them everywhere without too much thought. Yet still we see maps which over use small chokes and make forcefield way too strong amongst other issues (notably making the life of Zergs hell).
Swarm Hosts Swarm hosts add a new dimension of difficulty to designing maps. After a certain point in ZvZ/ZvP (and ZvT against mech) swam hosts become one of the stronger strategies in the Zerg arsenal (that probably goes without saying). One of the strengths of swam hosts (as a siege unit) is their ability to control space. Thinking about where swarm hosts might position themselves once you're at a four/five base stage will give you insight as to the strength of the unit.
Take Colonial Province where in horizontal or vertical positions the power of swarm hosts is quite formidable. They're able to control key locations behind two chokes which basically locks out the opposition from doing any direct engages (unless they're very far ahead). Making mapping decisions which allow players counterplay against swarm hosts is something that more maps should be thinking about.
Reasonable Naturals One question everyone should be asking upon creating a map is "can Protoss FFE here?". If the answer is yes, the the natural design is reasonable. While not solely a Protoss issue (all races like standard naturals for a variety of reasons) this question is sufficient to resolve all difficulties races might encounter. This is a more common mistake in maps cut early, but also persisted in some of the maps which were trying to make the concept work. Unfortunately, adding collapsible rocks is not sufficient to make a two sided natural work (as there's no real way for a Protoss to collapse one side, thus failing the FFE test).
This is such a horrible requirement in my opinion. I don't understand why not give open naturals a chance? Even Blizzard did so with Daedalus Point, only they did it pretty badly and went to the extreme very fast. I believe a well done open nat map can be exactly what the game needs.
Overall most of the balance requirements are pretty silly and deny innovation. How can progress be made if no risks are taken? Unless new and unique concepts are tried, the game will eventually become stale and one dimensional. Shoutcraft Clan Wars is one tournament where actual different maps are tried, and it works! New Pompeii laughs at your one entrance natural requirement with a double entrance main, and it produced some of the more exciting games I have seen.
We've had many maps on the ladder which would fail your requirements, do you dare to claim Korhal Floating Island was a bad map? Unless you radically change your thought process, or let someone else take the role to someone who is not afraid of introducing new and different maps to the ladder, I don't see how the TLMC will bring any big changes as it once have.
What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
On May 09 2014 10:09 BronzeKnee wrote: What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
Constraints are wrong, even if something is strong on a map it doesn't make it bad. A map is not good if it is balanced, it is good if it is interesting. I don't think Plexa agrees with me at all, but when I watch a game, I don't care if a race or a strategy is stronger than normal on it, I care if it produces interesting games. Of course even a map with odd features can actually be balanced, by combining opposite features, but it is very based of chance if a map is balanced, while making a Daybreak close is almost guaranteed to be balanced, even if it will not produce new strategies.
Of course it is different to play on an unusual map, it is harder since you actually need to think, and most SC2 players just copy from the pros. I personally like to play on odd maps, I did not veto Daedalus even though it was bad for Protoss, because it was interesting. A game on Daedalus is different than a game on Overgrowth, while a game on Overgrowth is not that different from a game on Frost, Ohana or w/e.
I say again, forget about imbalances, focus on gameplay. By forcing the players to find new strategies based on maps, the game will be more varied, and even though some maps will favor a race, it is better than having a stale game.
Well said Plexa, even though you took the time to bash no only Into the Wilds but also Darkness Falls, screw you.
Only part I disagree with quite a bit is on the whole nat2nat "has" to be 40+ (43 ideally) seconds. I believe even if the nat2nat is short if you make bases that are safer to expand to or actually make you want to expand to them (watchtower/high yield/high ground etc) that even with a short nat2nat distance you will still get many players wanting to go off 2 base play.
I actually think having a 4p map with shorter rush distances for nat2nat could actually be quite interesting. Assuming there aren't any major positional imbalances I believe just haven't a short rush distance wouldn't be that terrible.
Thanks for writing this up! I'd love to hear some of the other judges thoughts as well, if they care to take the time to type up their thoughts / how they looked at the maps / etc etc.
Reasonable Naturals One question everyone should be asking upon creating a map is "can Protoss FFE here?". If the answer is yes, the the natural design is reasonable. While not solely a Protoss issue (all races like standard naturals for a variety of reasons) this question is sufficient to resolve all difficulties races might encounter. This is a more common mistake in maps cut early, but also persisted in some of the maps which were trying to make the concept work. Unfortunately, adding collapsible rocks is not sufficient to make a two sided natural work (as there's no real way for a Protoss to collapse one side, thus failing the FFE test).
This is such a horrible requirement in my opinion. I don't understand why not give open naturals a chance? Even Blizzard did so with Daedalus Point, only they did it pretty badly and went to the extreme very fast. I believe a well done open nat map can be exactly what the game needs.
Overall most of the balance requirements are pretty silly and deny innovation. How can progress be made if no risks are taken? Unless new and unique concepts are tried, the game will eventually become stale and one dimensional. Shoutcraft Clan Wars is one tournament where actual different maps are tried, and it works! New Pompeii laughs at your one entrance natural requirement with a double entrance main, and it produced some of the more exciting games I have seen.
We've had many maps on the ladder which would fail your requirements, do you dare to claim Korhal Floating Island was a bad map? Unless you radically change your thought process, or let someone else take the role to someone who is not afraid of introducing new and different maps to the ladder, I don't see how the TLMC will bring any big changes as it once have.
Daedalus was a failure of a map, not sure why you'd bring that up as an example to support your opinion? Open naturals aren't necessarily ruled out -- Metalopolis was a map that (at least in some spawn positions) where you could FFE. There are other balance issues around open naturals but it doesn't necessarily rule them out. When you have two distinct entrances, however, FFE becomes impossible and you introduce issues for all races. Floating island was a map designed for proleague which is the best testing ground for maps -- let's not forget that the 'unorthodox' spawns were disabled for MLG.
Just because the double entrance main works in New Pompeii doesn't mean you can slap a second entrance to every map. Careful decisions need to be made to compensate for the fact that you have two entrances to defend. In New Pompeii's case that comes in the form of the restriction of army movement to the out skirts of the map. I'm not sold that it would be viable on the ladder but it wouldn't have instantly disqualified the map if it had been entered.
On May 09 2014 10:08 Quidios wrote: So the judges don't even open up and look at all the maps in the editor? Do maps get cut based of the overview?
Yes. Opening everything in the editor takes an extremely long time. It is far quicker to use overviews to give an initial assessment of the maps. Moreover the editor doesn't really reveal more than a good overview does. Once we've decided on a shortlist of maps we think have potential they get extensively playtested.
On May 09 2014 10:19 The_Templar wrote: Both my maps were cut early, it seems? Why?
team play: didn't offer anything that other maps didn't do better 1v1: some symmetry/spawn related issues (not quite rotational imbalance, but the type of symmetry used), some blink stalker/warp in issues and some tank issues. The concepts are interesting just required a higher level of execution.
On May 09 2014 10:09 BronzeKnee wrote: What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
Constraints are wrong, even if something is strong on a map it doesn't make it bad. A map is not good if it is balanced, it is good if it is interesting. I don't think Plexa agrees with me at all, but when I watch a game, I don't care if a race or a strategy is stronger than normal on it, I care if it produces interesting games. Of course even a map with odd features can actually be balanced, by combining opposite features, but it is very based of chance if a map is balanced, while making a Daybreak close is almost guaranteed to be balanced, even if it will not produce new strategies.
Of course it is different to play on an unusual map, it is harder since you actually need to think, and most SC2 players just copy from the pros. I personally like to play on odd maps, I did not veto Daedalus even though it was bad for Protoss, because it was interesting. A game on Daedalus is different than a game on Overgrowth, while a game on Overgrowth is not that different from a game on Frost, Ohana or w/e.
I say again, forget about imbalances, focus on gameplay. By forcing the players to find new strategies based on maps, the game will be more varied, and even though some maps will favor a race, it is better than having a stale game.
Here's the problem with your logic. (a) We've tested these things before in a variety of forms and we know they're broken. Suggesting the same broken ideas again isn't creating strategic diversity, it's holding mapping back in an early-hots release mindset. That's not the way to push the ideas in mapping forward. (b) BW continues to creating interesting maps but also has a bunch of rules which maps need to follow else the map gets broken. This is no different to the situation in SC2, but you need to look at innovating in other ways. Yes, that's harder than changing the spawns in some way -- and that's why true innovation is a trait of the very best mappers. (c) These things are not hard rules. However, it takes an extremely skilled mapper to treat these issues with the appropriate care - the bulk of the TL mapping community isn't at that level. For the majority of people reading this they should consider these hard rules as its more than likely that their submissions will be flat out unplayable as opposed to doing anything innovative. (d) Interesting maps do more than innovate the first three bases. Just because the first few bases are reasonably standard doesn't mean the map is boring -- look at cloud kingdom which does amazing things with the terrain after three bases. More needs to be done to innovate between the two spawn locations as opposed to being stuck in the mindset that innovation = weird spawns.
On May 09 2014 10:34 SidianTheBard wrote: Well said Plexa, even though you took the time to bash no only Into the Wilds but also Darkness Falls, screw you.
Only part I disagree with quite a bit is on the whole nat2nat "has" to be 40+ (43 ideally) seconds. I believe even if the nat2nat is short if you make bases that are safer to expand to or actually make you want to expand to them (watchtower/high yield/high ground etc) that even with a short nat2nat distance you will still get many players wanting to go off 2 base play.
I actually think having a 4p map with shorter rush distances for nat2nat could actually be quite interesting. Assuming there aren't any major positional imbalances I believe just haven't a short rush distance wouldn't be that terrible.
Thanks for writing this up! I'd love to hear some of the other judges thoughts as well, if they care to take the time to type up their thoughts / how they looked at the maps / etc etc.
Well Darkness Falls was unfortunately the map that told us that those features were very powerful. Some map had to go there! See (c) above for my reply regarding N2N rush distance.
Any maps that have giant racial imbalances or mirror match-up imbalances (such as no ramp from main) will not be able to support innovation in those matchups because players will continue to use strategies already in the meta in order to win. You won't see any PvP innovation in a map with no main ramp because it will just become a 4-gate fest. If there was a way to hold off a 4-gate without using FF (without going 4g yourself), we would have found it out by now.
There's a difference between killing innovation and avoiding things that are completely imbalanced.
Also Daedalus was ridiculously bad and anyone using that as a reference for their point is essentially digging themselves a hole.
And we did not know any authors (besides who posted in the TLMC thread) before we picked our finalists. There was no bias towards any mapmakers whatsoever.
On May 09 2014 09:23 Plexa wrote: only extremely well executed maps which have made calculated decisions to compensate can break the standard three base mold.
I think this is a key point that people need to understand. Most people who use gimmicky or bad features in a map do so without having a valid reason. Don't whine about rules if you refuse to put effort into breaking them.
On May 09 2014 10:19 The_Templar wrote: Both my maps were cut early, it seems? Why?
In addition to other problems mentioned earlier, Moon Lab allows a player to hold six bases with only two narrow entrances. Ashcrest looks like a map someone would make after opening the editor for the first time in April 2010.
On May 09 2014 10:33 moskonia wrote: I don't care if a race or a strategy is stronger than normal on it, I care if it produces interesting games.
If a certain strategy becomes too strong on a map, then the map ceases to produce interesting games.
Thanks for this Plexa & TL strategy team; I really like how this TLMC is more "transparent" than the previous ones. I really appreciate it.
I've noticed I kind of make that kind of "mistake" in my own maps, try to shoehorn in nonstandard or gimmicky stuff just for the heck of it, though I don't have the kind of game knowledge needed to really back it up.
(context: I made the arcadia clone) I was going to change the main entrance to either a smaller size or just a normal ramp before submitting it, but decided not to... for some reason (really shows I'm not an expert mapper of any kind haha) . Reeeeeeeggggrrrrret
EDIT: I really agree on your "show spawn points" point. It's actually pretty easy to do: in the "Export Map Image" dialog, there is a "view options" area. Select the "custom" radio button. Press the "Copy Game" button, then, in the list below, ensure that both the "Points" and "Points - Start Locations Only" checkboxes are checked.
On May 09 2014 11:16 Namrufus wrote: Thanks for this Plexa & TL strategy team; I really like how this TLMC is more "transparent" than the previous ones. I really appreciate it.
I've noticed I kind of make that kind of "mistake" in my own maps, try to shoehorn in nonstandard or gimmicky stuff just for the heck of it, though I don't have the kind of game knowledge needed to really back it up.
(context: I made the arcadia clone) I was going to change the main entrance to either a smaller size or just a normal ramp before submitting it, but decided not to... (really shows I'm not an expert mapper of any kind haha) . Reeeeeeeggggrrrrret
Arcadia and Samus both have really interesting concepts, but just lacked considerations for how to compensate for the unusual layouts. Let's take Arcadia for a moment. It was an interesting idea to make the third base your natural base and I think that concept has a lot of merit and warrants some additional exploration. But there were so many other things going on that made it impossible to get an accurate picture of the implications of this -- the lack of 1FF main was an issue, the lack of a natural 4th base was an issue, the high vulnerability of the third base lacked compensation and so on. Take Samus; obviously there's no way to expand properly here. Perhaps removing the exterior ramp from the high ground base so that you could do a wall off at the bottom where the two ramps meet could have been an interesting idea to make the natural viable. The rest of the map has issues since it's basically a BW clone, but there are ways to do interesting things there if you really think about it.
Also, I'm just rephrasing what the strategy team expressed while judging so they deserve the bulk of the credit!!
In general, maps that don't allow for a reasonable 3rd base and reasonable natural base for all races limit gameplay.
A map without a reasonable 3rd will provoke 2 base all-ins. Those all-ins might be very clever for the first few weeks of play, but the map will quickly run out of interesting new builds and the map will become stale and boring well before a season ends.
Without a reasonable 3rd base, players cannot reliably threaten macro games, meaning opponents need only prepare for 2 base all-ins and scout appropriately. If a third goes down, then you simply all-in and win due to the difficulty of holding that 3rd. If the bases are too far apart, drops and mutas get too strong.
Maps simply must have a reasonable natural and 3rd for all races. If you're going to do something about the openness of the natural, there must be a compensating feature somewhere to make up for it.
There's a huge section on how balance/distance of 3rds basically needs to remain constant and you gave a bunch of examples where 3rds are too far/difficult - but for a long time maps have been pushing the envelope with how easy the 3rd bases are. How come experimenting in the opposite direction has been deemed unacceptable?
On May 09 2014 11:39 -NegativeZero- wrote: There's a huge section on how balance/distance of 3rds basically needs to remain constant and you gave a bunch of examples where 3rds are too far/difficult - but for a long time maps have been pushing the envelope with how easy the 3rd bases are. How come experimenting in the opposite direction has been deemed unacceptable?
It isn't, but the maps we saw didn't do it well.
For the record, Catalenna had a difficult to take 3rd and we made it a finalist.
On May 09 2014 11:39 -NegativeZero- wrote: There's a huge section on how balance/distance of 3rds basically needs to remain constant and you gave a bunch of examples where 3rds are too far/difficult - but for a long time maps have been pushing the envelope with how easy the 3rd bases are. How come experimenting in the opposite direction has been deemed unacceptable?
tldr; daybreak.
The long version is that daybreak basically set the standard for main-nat-third distances and the game has been more or less balanced around that. If you do want to experiment with thirds a long distance away then you obviously need to be treating the strength of two base play -- you can't give both players a free natural and difficult third because that disproportionately favours non-zerg races and the net result is a ton of stupid two base play which no one really likes. Coriolis gave an solid attempt at making the concept work, but the benefits of the gold base served to accentuate issues rather than fix them -- by that I mean that (for instance) in ZvP the third base is quite difficult for protoss to secure (let alone zerg) so if the protoss allows the zerg to secure the gold base he is basically lost -- since the gold gives an even greater advantage than blue bases making it easier for zergs to shut down the protoss third. Hence it actually encourages protoss even more to play off of two base to prevent this from happening.
One solution I see for this (that I would advise most people to not even bother with because they wouldn't be able to execute it properly) is making the natural more difficult to take so that the free two base issue is circumvented. This introduces a bunch of other issues which need to be properly balanced/assessed but could conceivably work. The key here is making it work, because its very easy to break thinks when you're operating outside of the meta the game has been balanced for. Moreover some would argue that we're regressing into early WoL territory (which is true) and that that isn't a good thing (but who knows, early WoL style maps haven't really been tested and a well executed one would definitely pique our interests).
I entirely agree with just about 90% of this. I think the disappointing results of this TLMC were a result nothing more than a disappointing submissions. Some maps, despite how cool or neat the ideas are, were bound to just fail for the various reasons listed. So, I can't really complain about how the judges picked the finalists.
Yet, there stands that one thing I don't agree with. The Swarmhost thing is kinda BS in my opinion. Since when did engaging swarmhosts head on be the only approach? Since when did the use of multi-prong attacks with warp prisms, proxy pylons, drops, and air play just disappear? As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough to justify the necessity of multiple ground paths vs swarmhosts, as we haven't had a recent map that has really driven that point home. Even if we have, maybe that map could have just had more features, such as those that straighten air play, to fix the issue. Simply theory crafting that something won't work without giving time for players to adapt is silly in my eyes.
On May 09 2014 10:49 Plexa wrote: Yes. Opening everything in the editor takes an extremely long time. It is far quicker to use overviews to give an initial assessment of the maps. Moreover the editor doesn't really reveal more than a good overview does. Once we've decided on a shortlist of maps we think have potential they get extensively playtested.
Well this is disappointing. "Extremely long time" is a great exaggeration especially considering the judging period. Taking a closer look at a map in detail is done in 3 minutes easily. With the amount of maps that was submitted it could be done in 2 days by one person.
Moreover "the editor doesn't really reveal more than a good overview does" is a blatantly ignorant statement.
If there's another TLMC I will remember to colorcode my overviews, for unbuildable areas for example, and type out all the information that's not visible in a 90 degrees overview.
On May 09 2014 10:49 Plexa wrote: Yes. Opening everything in the editor takes an extremely long time. It is far quicker to use overviews to give an initial assessment of the maps. Moreover the editor doesn't really reveal more than a good overview does. Once we've decided on a shortlist of maps we think have potential they get extensively playtested.
Well this is disappointing. "Extremely long time" is a great exaggeration especially considering the judging period. Taking a closer look at a map in detail is done in 3 minutes easily. With the amount of maps that was submitted it could be done in 2 days by one person.
Moreover "the editor doesn't really reveal more than a good overview does" is a blatantly ignorant statement.
If there's another TLMC I will remember to colorcode my overviews, for unbuildable areas for example, and type out all the information that's not visible in a 90 degrees overview.
When there are ambiguities in a map we'll open the editor to clarify those (which we did a few times before the playtesting stage); in general we're pretty good at understanding the ideas behind the map to a sufficient degree to decide whether or not we want those play tested or not. To have a quick turn around in the judging period this is just how things are. Remember there isn't just one person judging, you have an entire team of people judging and this is the most efficient way to do this. Moreover, this is standard practice for all the mapping contests i know of.
On May 09 2014 11:39 -NegativeZero- wrote: There's a huge section on how balance/distance of 3rds basically needs to remain constant and you gave a bunch of examples where 3rds are too far/difficult - but for a long time maps have been pushing the envelope with how easy the 3rd bases are. How come experimenting in the opposite direction has been deemed unacceptable?
tldr; daybreak.
The long version is that daybreak basically set the standard for main-nat-third distances and the game has been more or less balanced around that. If you do want to experiment with thirds a long distance away then you obviously need to be treating the strength of two base play -- you can't give both players a free natural and difficult third because that disproportionately favours non-zerg races and the net result is a ton of stupid two base play which no one really likes. Coriolis gave an solid attempt at making the concept work, but the benefits of the gold base served to accentuate issues rather than fix them -- by that I mean that (for instance) in ZvP the third base is quite difficult for protoss to secure (let alone zerg) so if the protoss allows the zerg to secure the gold base he is basically lost -- since the gold gives an even greater advantage than blue bases making it easier for zergs to shut down the protoss third. Hence it actually encourages protoss even more to play off of two base to prevent this from happening.
One solution I see for this (that I would advise most people to not even bother with because they wouldn't be able to execute it properly) is making the natural more difficult to take so that the free two base issue is circumvented. This introduces a bunch of other issues which need to be properly balanced/assessed but could conceivably work. The key here is making it work, because its very easy to break thinks when you're operating outside of the meta the game has been balanced for. Moreover some would argue that we're regressing into early WoL territory (which is true) and that that isn't a good thing (but who knows, early WoL style maps haven't really been tested and a well executed one would definitely pique our interests).
I actually had the exact same idea, hence the 2 entrance nat on Coriolis. What would you consider a "good" difficult natural?
On May 09 2014 12:01 Timetwister22 wrote: I entirely agree with just about 90% of this. I think the disappointing results of this TLMC were a result nothing more than a disappointing submissions. Some maps, despite how cool or neat the ideas are, were bound to just fail for the various reasons listed. So, I can't really complain about how the judges picked the finalists.
Yet, there stands that one thing I don't agree with. The Swarmhost thing is kinda BS in my opinion. Since when did engaging swarmhosts head on be the only approach? Since when did the use of multi-prong attacks with warp prisms, proxy pylons, drops, and air play just disappear? As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough to justify the necessity of multiple ground paths vs swarmhosts, as we haven't had a recent map that has really driven that point home. Even if we have, maybe that map could have just had more features, such as those that straighten air play, to fix the issue. Simply theory crafting that something won't work without giving time for players to adapt is silly in my eyes.
Engaging swarmhosts head on is exactly the wrong approach, and that was a big consideration on these maps. When there was only one real attack path on a map in which swarmhosts would block, that's a problem, especially given how hard it is to attack via air due to a lack of real air paths. If you have to circle the entire map to drop, that's not a good thing. These maps were tested.
Another thing to note for mapmakers is the distance between the minerals at mains and naturals and walls. It's not a major thing (Foxtrot had a daybreak style cannon rushing spot behind the main) but it's better to be aware of these just in case it gets by us.
Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection?
On May 09 2014 13:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection?
Foxtrot Labs (2nd place) is asymmetrical. It looks like a cross-only map but one of the asymmetrical spawns is actually enabled.
On May 09 2014 13:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection?
Foxtrot Labs (2nd place) is asymmetrical. It looks like a cross-only map but one of the asymmetrical spawns is actually enabled.
Right, I'd forgotten that horizontal spawns were enabled, but I wasn't asking about asymmetrical spawns but rather if the map itself could be asymmetrical. An example of this would be Rush Hour in BW (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Rush_Hour), though not necessarily to that extent.
On May 09 2014 13:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Out of interest, did anyone submit a significantly asymmetrical map? Also, could an asymmetrical map be shortlisted as finalist for the TLMC, or is being asymmetrical grounds enough for rejection?
Foxtrot Labs (2nd place) is asymmetrical. It looks like a cross-only map but one of the asymmetrical spawns is actually enabled.
Right, I'd forgotten that horizontal spawns were enabled, but I wasn't asking about asymmetrical spawns but rather if the map itself could be asymmetrical. An example of this would be Rush Hour in BW (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Rush_Hour), though not necessarily to that extent.
Asymmetrical maps aren't excluded because they're asymmetrical. Invariably, they're just not at the level of symmetrical maps and have many many issues. I wouldn't consider Rush asymmetrical -- it was as close to 3 player symmetry we could get in BW until we invented inverted ramps and other things.
On May 09 2014 10:09 BronzeKnee wrote: What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
Well, Blink rushes TvP are just broken. The other two... Forcefields make it hard to have too chokey maps, though that is not just on FFs. As said, chokes are good for early ZvZ as well. Chokey maps can be quite tricky in general because turtling becomes very strong.
Swarm Hosts however... no clue what he is talking about. It's not like strong Swarm Host maps would have been inherently broken. Heavy Rain, Habitation Station, Newkirk, Overgrowth - the best SH maps we had up to now are all pretty balanced maps, at least for PvZ, where Swarm Host scenarios matters most. I'd really like to know about ONE example of a map that was too strong for SHs. Same goes about the comment about open space (with the Alterzim example). No clue what the problem is with having large open areas in a map (not that Alterzim is a good map, but I don't see how that open space is contributing to the Protoss dominance on that map).
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too.
Plexa, when it comes to analyzing of maps, it seems to me that mineral lines are also something you should look into, as in Biome, 3rd and 4th mineral lines are different for every base, and it does strange stuff with pathing for larger units (tanks, untras, colos). In Biome, some bases mineral lines are having their area behind them blocked from one side while others arent and one of them is blocked from all places, making it impossible to large units to enter behind those mineral lines, creating possible balance issues.
Well said, thanks for a lengthy and useful post to both plexa and the rest of the strategy team who did the hard work of judging for TLMC. I agree with Timetwister (no, surely you jest!) that the submissions led to the "disappointing" results. Though the given restrictions didn't help, I suppose. I hope one day the TLMC is in a place where it can be a little more experimental. Although as a way of generating/filtering for top notch standard maps (the design space of which has not nearly been mined out) it serves well -- e.g. Foxtrot.
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too.
No map was excluded because of the number of bases. Your maps needed to work on proportions mostly.
On May 09 2014 16:46 19Meavis93 wrote: so under what would Fallen empire fall? to open middle or what?
Open middle and proportions.
On May 09 2014 16:48 Morbidius wrote: Are the 3 base free turtle maps really better than this? Disappointing especially after Cloud Kingdom...
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too.
No map was excluded because of the number of bases. Your maps needed to work on proportions mostly.
I'll keep working on my mapping, but I do want to say this: thank you for being both cordial and helpful during this whole thing. You can tell by my post count that I'm new around here, and I've sent your team more than my fair share of PMs for an unknown, but you guys have been great. TL has become more than just a stream portal for me the last few months and that's an awesome feeling.
You seem to have a grasp on this, but I'll say it anyway. Most of the people posting here asking questions about their maps only want to get better. The more information you can provide to others, the better idea we all have of where we need to head next time. The quality of feedback we get right now is in many ways linked to the quality of maps we'll all see next season. And I don't want my competition to get any easier.
I may be new at SC2 mapping, but I have had CS maps run in a few pro leagues, including CEVO, so the desire for greatness is there for me. But few are great on their own. Which brings me to my only criticism of this whole thing. I was flying blind. Sure, experience is experience, and nothing trumps that, but you're lucky to get 5 or 10 replies on the forums for a decently put together map and out of those maybe 2 have actually played the thing. There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating.
On May 09 2014 14:45 CoraBlue wrote:There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating.
We've all been feeling those feels since the beginning. Your best bet is to collect amicable masters players on your friends list and try to get testing in that way. It's tough though, because even "good" players don't really understand maps and map feedback necessarily. But at least your testing will be indicative of something. Hopefully.
I think this is one of the main reasons why mapmakers trust to theorycrafting since we're trying to create novel gameplay anyway, and it's quite impossible to test to the level where you could validate your map concept and identify and winnow imbalances.
A complaint I heard during the contest that you did not mention here was base count. Was that a factor in eliminating any maps? In your opinion is 18 bases on a large 2-in-1 grounds for elimination?
Triskelion had a low-ground main and lots of empty space. It was very experimental but ultimately turned out to be a mess.
However with Zhakul I feel like I got really close and if I knew the issues with it I might be interested in sprucing it up for next time. Its possible that the high ground watchtowers near both 3rds were a problem, but I'd be interested in your opinions on base count too.
No map was excluded because of the number of bases. Your maps needed to work on proportions mostly.
I'll keep working on my mapping, but I do want to say this: thank you for being both cordial and helpful during this whole thing. You can tell by my post count that I'm new around here, and I've sent your team more than my fair share of PMs for an unknown, but you guys have been great. TL has become more than just a stream portal for me the last few months and that's an awesome feeling.
You seem to have a grasp on this, but I'll say it anyway. Most of the people posting here asking questions about their maps only want to get better. The more information you can provide to others, the better idea we all have of where we need to head next time. The quality of feedback we get right now is in many ways linked to the quality of maps we'll all see next season. And I don't want my competition to get any easier.
I may be new at SC2 mapping, but I have had CS maps run in a few pro leagues, including CEVO, so the desire for greatness is there for me. But few are great on their own. Which brings me to my only criticism of this whole thing. I was flying blind. Sure, experience is experience, and nothing trumps that, but you're lucky to get 5 or 10 replies on the forums for a decently put together map and out of those maybe 2 have actually played the thing. There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating.
Keep up the good work.
Glad to hear that you like the place! Honestly the best thing for you to do to grow as a mapper is just make maps. Most of them will suck but that's okay. I still have some of Uvantaks first submissions and they were not so good :D while the mapping forum isn't as active as it used to be normally you're able to get some feedback from the community regarding your map(s) and you can take that an improve! Oh, and of course participate in contests when they present themselves.
On May 09 2014 14:45 CoraBlue wrote:There are certainly no internal or community methods available to mappers to actually play test their own maps short of playing AI or finding friends with in-game chat who may not know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not saying its your responsibility to organize anything like that, I'm just saying it'd be nice. As someone with drive but not many connections yet, I found this frustrating.
We've all been feeling those feels since the beginning. Your best bet is to collect amicable masters players on your friends list and try to get testing in that way. It's tough though, because even "good" players don't really understand maps and map feedback necessarily. But at least your testing will be indicative of something. Hopefully.
I think this is one of the main reasons why mapmakers trust to theorycrafting since we're trying to create novel gameplay anyway, and it's quite impossible to test to the level where you could validate your map concept and identify and winnow imbalances.
As ETP points out, this is a long standing issue. There isn't a magical solution for this and it will be an issue for years to come I'd imagine.
Rotational imbalances This more often than not relates to the previous issue in terms of making thirds accessible. Another issue which makes them inaccessible is a lack of appreciation for rotational spawn imbalances. But rotational imbalances extend beyond that to include differences in medivac vulnerability, fourth accessibility and blink surface areas. To some extent we're happy to accept some degree of rotational imbalance, so long as the advantage isn't overwhelming.
Maps like Nemesis, Samsara and Hunting Grounds exhibit problems like this.
And what about Catallena ? It's the worst 3 players maps I've ever seen, the rotational imbalance is worse than on Merry Go Round. It's also chokey as hell and quite vulnerable to blink stalkers.
Back in the day I tried to form the map makers group, for joint testing, but it never took off sadly. The biggest problem there is no incentive for GM players to test maps, and you can't really create intensive without a big personality, or a decent amount of money. Sadly the only possible way to get high masters+ testing is to be one yourself, and even then you will only be able to test 1/2 of the matchups.
Anyways if everyone are asking what was wrong about their maps, if it possible I would love to hear what were the biggest flaws with the map I sent, Kryptonites.
On May 09 2014 19:26 moskonia wrote: Back in the day I tried to form the map makers group, for joint testing, but it never took off sadly. The biggest problem there is no incentive for GM players to test maps, and you can't really create intensive without a big personality, or a decent amount of money. Sadly the only possible way to get high masters+ testing is to be one yourself, and even then you will only be able to test 1/2 of the matchups.
Anyways if everyone are asking what was wrong about their maps, if it possible I would love to hear what were the biggest flaws with the map I sent, Kryptonites.
yep, as mid master random I always have at least 1 play tester ready, but when asking anyone if they want to help testing the response would always be "not now I'm laddering"
The best thing you can do for play testing is just to get games in. The players don't need to be masters, as you see units moving on the map you'll notice stuff. Also simply checking for blink able area isn't too hard either just vs ai. Any diamond+ who wants to break your map can probably do it if they put the thought and effort into it.
Thanks for the great writeup, Plexa. You made me realize what a god awful map Antiga Shipyard is. It single handedly broke almost every rule in the book. haha.
On May 09 2014 21:48 Existor wrote: With your priorities and requirements, any of ladder maps can't win your Map contest at all.
With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much.
Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps.
Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here.
Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance
Rotational imbalances This more often than not relates to the previous issue in terms of making thirds accessible. Another issue which makes them inaccessible is a lack of appreciation for rotational spawn imbalances. But rotational imbalances extend beyond that to include differences in medivac vulnerability, fourth accessibility and blink surface areas. To some extent we're happy to accept some degree of rotational imbalance, so long as the advantage isn't overwhelming.
Maps like Nemesis, Samsara and Hunting Grounds exhibit problems like this.
And what about Catallena ? It's the worst 3 players maps I've ever seen, the rotational imbalance is worse than on Merry Go Round. It's also chokey as hell and quite vulnerable to blink stalkers.
Catallena is JUST large enough to overcome those rotational imbalances. At first glance, we were skeptical that it would be ridiculously imba, but on further playtesting, we found that it actually provided fairly interesting and balanced games (albeit, it WAS quite hard to take a 3rd and 4th compared to the other maps). It's a good map. (For the record, it's also infinitely better than Merry Go Round, imo).
Hunting Grounds in close positions, on the other hand, allows one player to always get a free and safe 3rd (and 4th) while allowing a very short walk directly into the 3rd of their opponent in a place where it was nearly impossible to get vision. The biggest issue here was in TvZ, where the distance between the natural and the Zerg 3rd was ~30s, and it was impossible to get creep spread over in this corridor fast enough (especially with reaper/hellion harass limiting the creep). In addition, the flank was huge, but that's a minor point comparatively. In short, Hunting Grounds might have benefited from slightly longer distances.
On May 09 2014 21:48 Existor wrote: With your priorities and requirements, any of ladder maps can't win your Map contest at all.
With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much.
Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps.
Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here.
Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance
How many Protoss players do you know that don't veto Waystation?
On May 09 2014 21:48 Existor wrote: With your priorities and requirements, any of ladder maps can't win your Map contest at all.
With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much.
Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps.
Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here.
Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance
Ah yes quite right. It's also not a very good map as John points out! But it does serve as yet another case study of what happens when thirds are too far. Also, what does Waystation and Alterzim have in common!
Merry go round would have fallen into the 'acceptable degree' of rotational imbalance. There's clearly been a lot of thought trying to mitigate as much spawn imbalance as possible.
So, since it hasn't been mentioned in the OP and none of the issues described there seem to apply to it in an obvious manner, I'm interested in hearing about what problems my map Crusader has. If the name doesn't ring a bell, here's the overview: + Show Spoiler +
I see three points in the OP that might possibly apply to Crusader, but I was considering these when designing the map and I thought I had taken sufficient measures to make them non-issues:
Nat2Nat distances On close spawns (NE vs SE) the nat2nat distance is 39 seconds. This is alleviated by that a) there's a watchtower overlooking both short attack routes, b) there's an overlord spot in front of the natural entrance, c) the natural choke is right at the base (I'm generally of the opinion that for nat2nat, base to choke is a more important distance than base to base), d) there's a second forward choke, e) when taking a third you expand away from your opponent, and f) it's a four player map (also see SidianTheBard's post which I agree with). Furthermore, this map revolves around the idea of providing six different types of games on one map, so you only get the NE vs SE matchup in one out of six games. And if the 39 seconds were still an issue, you could even disable NE vs SE spawns and still end up with five different combinations, unlike on axially symmetric maps where if you disable close positions you only have two combinations left.
Blink Stalkers Lots of surface area at the backdoor third, but stalkers need to go a long way around to bounce between there and the natural. Also, the natural choke is super close to the base, so it becomes even less of a problem for Terran to defend blink play economically, right? And the Protoss main can easily be scouted with Reapers so you'll see it coming.
Accessibility of thirds Is there a problem with Zerg being forced to take the backdoor third in half of the cardinal spawns? I thought this wasn't an issue because in those cases you expand away from your opponent, and an opponent attacking that base before the rocks are down would be out of position and vulnerable to runbys.
So... I dunno, was the main backdoor the problem? Or the four gold bases?
Also, I can see why Paradise Found didn't make it (especially the location of the thirds), but I'd like to hear whether there was also a particular problem with the main/nat setup (blink play?) since it is quite unusual and partly inspired by Into the Wilds.
Thanks!
On May 09 2014 11:05 Corazon wrote: Also Daedalus was ridiculously bad and anyone using that as a reference for their point is essentially digging themselves a hole.
On May 09 2014 21:48 Existor wrote: With your priorities and requirements, any of ladder maps can't win your Map contest at all.
With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much.
Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps.
Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here.
Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance
Ah yes quite right. It's also not a very good map as John points out! But it does serve as yet another case study of what happens when thirds are too far. Also, what does Waystation and Alterzim have in common!
Open space. Could you please explain what's the problem with open spaces, since you keep on saying and hinting that it's a problem, don't say why... Waystation is rather anti-Protoss (in both matchups). Alterzim is rather pro-Protoss (in both matchups). Neither has to do with the open space, but with base setups (3rd base on Waystation is so far away for P) and how bad SHs are on Alterzim.
On May 09 2014 10:09 BronzeKnee wrote: What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
Well, Blink rushes TvP are just broken. The other two... Forcefields make it hard to have too chokey maps, though that is not just on FFs. As said, chokes are good for early ZvZ as well. Chokey maps can be quite tricky in general because turtling becomes very strong.
Swarm Hosts however... no clue what he is talking about. It's not like strong Swarm Host maps would have been inherently broken. Heavy Rain, Habitation Station, Newkirk, Overgrowth - the best SH maps we had up to now are all pretty balanced maps, at least for PvZ, where Swarm Host scenarios matters most. I'd really like to know about ONE example of a map that was too strong for SHs. Same goes about the comment about open space (with the Alterzim example). No clue what the problem is with having large open areas in a map (not that Alterzim is a good map, but I don't see how that open space is contributing to the Protoss dominance on that map).
I'll let Whitewing answer this:
On May 09 2014 12:33 Whitewing wrote:
When there was only one real attack path on a map in which swarmhosts would block, that's a problem, especially given how hard it is to attack via air due to a lack of real air paths. If you have to circle the entire map to drop, that's not a good thing.
On May 09 2014 10:09 BronzeKnee wrote: What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
Well, Blink rushes TvP are just broken. The other two... Forcefields make it hard to have too chokey maps, though that is not just on FFs. As said, chokes are good for early ZvZ as well. Chokey maps can be quite tricky in general because turtling becomes very strong.
Swarm Hosts however... no clue what he is talking about. It's not like strong Swarm Host maps would have been inherently broken. Heavy Rain, Habitation Station, Newkirk, Overgrowth - the best SH maps we had up to now are all pretty balanced maps, at least for PvZ, where Swarm Host scenarios matters most. I'd really like to know about ONE example of a map that was too strong for SHs. Same goes about the comment about open space (with the Alterzim example). No clue what the problem is with having large open areas in a map (not that Alterzim is a good map, but I don't see how that open space is contributing to the Protoss dominance on that map).
When there was only one real attack path on a map in which swarmhosts would block, that's a problem, especially given how hard it is to attack via air due to a lack of real air paths. If you have to circle the entire map to drop, that's not a good thing.
yeah, which map does that apply to? Maps with only one attack path and hard to drop on are in general going to be extremely boring and blockable with various strategies. And are probably going to be broken in TvP long before they are broken for SH play.
As a neutral observer of the SC2 map making scene (I created some BW maps in a past life), this post sadly confirmed much of the impressions I had: This scene is on figure skating level of 'judging', maybe even worse!
Instead of humbleness, self proclaimed experts show bias and sell them as truths. You see, instead of admitting that without proper tools judging a map without playing on is near impossible, you guys are above that. Unlike us mortals you guys can just look at an overview picture for 5 seconds and see the imbalance come at you like Neo.
I know you will most likely ignore this post. Just realize, in my eyes, you are that Russian judge that gives a 10 to his favorite skater and thinks he very objective and is 'defending his sport', when everybody on the TV can see that he is beyond help.
On May 09 2014 09:23 Plexa wrote: I appreciate that the mapping community wants to try an innovate, but your innovations should be focusing on the map between the two players and not the first three bases. Play with fourths, play with the center, see what can and can't work there... but only extremely well executed maps which have made calculated decisions to compensate can break the standard three base mold.
On May 09 2014 10:08 Quidios wrote: So the judges don't even open up and look at all the maps in the editor? Do maps get cut based of the overview?
Yes. Opening everything in the editor takes an extremely long time. It is far quicker to use overviews to give an initial assessment of the maps. Moreover the editor doesn't really reveal more than a good overview does. Once we've decided on a shortlist of maps we think have potential they get extensively playtested.
On May 09 2014 12:11 Plexa wrote: [] in general we're pretty good at understanding the ideas behind the map to a sufficient degree to decide whether or not we want those play tested or not. To have a quick turn around in the judging period this is just how things are. Remember there isn't just one person judging, you have an entire team of people judging and this is the most efficient way to do this. Moreover, this is standard practice for all the mapping contests i know of.
On May 09 2014 22:22 And G wrote: So, since it hasn't been mentioned in the OP and none of the issues described there seem to apply to it in an obvious manner, I'm interested in hearing about what problems my map Crusader has. If the name doesn't ring a bell, here's the overview: + Show Spoiler +
I see three points in the OP that might possibly apply to Crusader, but I was considering these when designing the map and I thought I had taken sufficient measures to make them non-issues:
Nat2Nat distances On close spawns (NE vs SE) the nat2nat distance is 39 seconds. This is alleviated by that a) there's a watchtower overlooking both short attack routes, b) there's an overlord spot in front of the natural entrance, c) the natural choke is right at the base (I'm generally of the opinion that for nat2nat, base to choke is a more important distance than base to base), d) there's a second forward choke, e) when taking a third you expand away from your opponent, and f) it's a four player map (also see SidianTheBard's post which I agree with). Furthermore, this map revolves around the idea of providing six different types of games on one map, so you only get the NE vs SE matchup in one out of six games. And if the 39 seconds were still an issue, you could even disable NE vs SE spawns and still end up with five different combinations, unlike on axially symmetric maps where if you disable close positions you only have two combinations left.
Blink Stalkers Lots of surface area at the backdoor third, but stalkers need to go a long way around to bounce between there and the natural. Also, the natural choke is super close to the base, so it becomes even less of a problem for Terran to defend blink play economically, right? And the Protoss main can easily be scouted with Reapers so you'll see it coming.
Accessibility of thirds Is there a problem with Zerg being forced to take the backdoor third in half of the cardinal spawns? I thought this wasn't an issue because in those cases you expand away from your opponent, and an opponent attacking that base before the rocks are down would be out of position and vulnerable to runbys.
So... I dunno, was the main backdoor the problem? Or the four gold bases?
Also, I can see why Paradise Found didn't make it (especially the location of the thirds), but I'd like to hear whether there was also a particular problem with the main/nat setup (blink play?) since it is quite unusual and partly inspired by Into the Wilds.
On May 09 2014 11:05 Corazon wrote: Also Daedalus was ridiculously bad and anyone using that as a reference for their point is essentially digging themselves a hole.
I'm going to have to defer this one to the strategy team! But I believe the answer is at some point a line needed to be drawn in terms of what things they wanted to have properly tested which included some of the more interesting yet potentially broken maps. This set of judges felt that in this contest they would rather test other maps than Crusader. Given the extreme limitations on the turn around for this contest these concessions had to be made to give a fair assessment of the final candidates. Under different circumstances it probably would have made its way to testing and more in depth feedback could be given. With that said, it was borderline for a reason and those people who didn't like the map can speak up about that if they wish.
On May 09 2014 21:48 Existor wrote: With your priorities and requirements, any of ladder maps can't win your Map contest at all.
With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much.
Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps.
Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here.
Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance
Ah yes quite right. It's also not a very good map as John points out! But it does serve as yet another case study of what happens when thirds are too far. Also, what does Waystation and Alterzim have in common!
Open space. Could you please explain what's the problem with open spaces, since you keep on saying and hinting that it's a problem, don't say why... Waystation is rather anti-Protoss (in both matchups). Alterzim is rather pro-Protoss (in both matchups). Neither has to do with the open space, but with base setups (3rd base on Waystation is so far away for P) and how bad SHs are on Alterzim.
Also Frost is very open too.
Actually what I was getting at is that they're both Blizzard maps >.> ... open space is related to how easy it is to move across the map and attack and whatnot. Most good maps do interesting things with what would otherwise be open space to promote interesting army movement or strategic decisions in which bases to take and so on. Open space just kinda does nothing, except make it difficult to move out as a non-zerg.
On May 09 2014 22:33 lord_nibbler wrote: As a neutral observer of the SC2 map making scene (I created some BW maps in a past life), this post sadly confirmed much of the impressions I had: This scene is on figure skating level of 'judging', maybe even worse!
Instead of humbleness, self proclaimed experts show bias and sell them as truths. You see, instead of admitting that without proper tools judging a map without playing on is near impossible, you guys are above that. Unlike us mortals you guys can just look at an overview picture for 5 seconds and see the imbalance come at you like Neo.
I know you will most likely ignore this post. Just realize, in my eyes, you are that Russian judge that gives a 10 to his favorite skater and thinks he very objective and is 'defending his sport', when everybody on the TV can see that he is beyond help.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
Assuming you're talking about the use of overviews... Never once have I said that we're perfect; but in order to get things done in a timely fashion some concessions have to be made and one of those concessions is doing initial rounds of judging through overviews. You can speak to other top map makers who have run tournaments; doing the first round of cuts is relatively easy because there are obvious proportion problems and other obvious signs which can all be done through overviews. After that things get a little trickier with overviews but you can still do quite a bit -- things like assessing how much space there is for blink stalkers is something that can easily be done by looking at an overview (and then by drawing on previous maps we can determine an approximate strength of blink stalkers). Rinse and repeat this for a number of the things I have stated in the OP and you have yourself a set of candidates for intensive play testing. After play testing we can confidently make predictions about how games should play out on those maps and be sure that the maps chosen will be playable without major balance concerns.
Reasonable Naturals One question everyone should be asking upon creating a map is "can Protoss FFE here?". If the answer is yes, the the natural design is reasonable. While not solely a Protoss issue (all races like standard naturals for a variety of reasons) this question is sufficient to resolve all difficulties races might encounter. This is a more common mistake in maps cut early, but also persisted in some of the maps which were trying to make the concept work. Unfortunately, adding collapsible rocks is not sufficient to make a two sided natural work (as there's no real way for a Protoss to collapse one side, thus failing the FFE test).
This is such a horrible requirement in my opinion. I don't understand why not give open naturals a chance? Even Blizzard did so with Daedalus Point, only they did it pretty badly and went to the extreme very fast. I believe a well done open nat map can be exactly what the game needs.
Overall most of the balance requirements are pretty silly and deny innovation. How can progress be made if no risks are taken? Unless new and unique concepts are tried, the game will eventually become stale and one dimensional. Shoutcraft Clan Wars is one tournament where actual different maps are tried, and it works! New Pompeii laughs at your one entrance natural requirement with a double entrance main, and it produced some of the more exciting games I have seen.
We've had many maps on the ladder which would fail your requirements, do you dare to claim Korhal Floating Island was a bad map? Unless you radically change your thought process, or let someone else take the role to someone who is not afraid of introducing new and different maps to the ladder, I don't see how the TLMC will bring any big changes as it once have.
If you can't FFE on a map then you also can't 1GFE on that map. The Protoss needs to be able to get a reasonable wall up by 5:30 if they want to play safe against Speedling all-ins and the like, and if that isn't possible then you basically cut out all standard openings currently used at the pro-level. If you make it so that the map doesn't have a reasonable choke at the natural then people would have to open 2 or 3 Gate Sentry Expand and that's just not viable in the current metagame (and that's coming from someone who opened 2 Gate Sentry Expand right up until the end of WoL).
This is more or less it. Every game would be zerg playing standard and protoss playing at a disadvantage. There's no need for zerg to play any differently on these maps, but protoss has to make huge adjustments which put them behind. All zerg needs to do is scout properly (like they already have to do) and make units at the right times and they'll win. Protoss pushes will be later and weaker.
These maps also make ZvZ difficult (can't wall the natural as easily, so it's hard to expand in that matchup), ZvT roach/baneling busts get stronger, and so on. In general, the wider the natural choke is, the stronger zerg aggression is, without buffing the other two races in any noticeable way.
On May 09 2014 22:22 And G wrote: So, since it hasn't been mentioned in the OP and none of the issues described there seem to apply to it in an obvious manner, I'm interested in hearing about what problems my map Crusader has. If the name doesn't ring a bell, here's the overview: + Show Spoiler +
I see three points in the OP that might possibly apply to Crusader, but I was considering these when designing the map and I thought I had taken sufficient measures to make them non-issues:
Nat2Nat distances On close spawns (NE vs SE) the nat2nat distance is 39 seconds. This is alleviated by that a) there's a watchtower overlooking both short attack routes, b) there's an overlord spot in front of the natural entrance, c) the natural choke is right at the base (I'm generally of the opinion that for nat2nat, base to choke is a more important distance than base to base), d) there's a second forward choke, e) when taking a third you expand away from your opponent, and f) it's a four player map (also see SidianTheBard's post which I agree with). Furthermore, this map revolves around the idea of providing six different types of games on one map, so you only get the NE vs SE matchup in one out of six games. And if the 39 seconds were still an issue, you could even disable NE vs SE spawns and still end up with five different combinations, unlike on axially symmetric maps where if you disable close positions you only have two combinations left.
Blink Stalkers Lots of surface area at the backdoor third, but stalkers need to go a long way around to bounce between there and the natural. Also, the natural choke is super close to the base, so it becomes even less of a problem for Terran to defend blink play economically, right? And the Protoss main can easily be scouted with Reapers so you'll see it coming.
Accessibility of thirds Is there a problem with Zerg being forced to take the backdoor third in half of the cardinal spawns? I thought this wasn't an issue because in those cases you expand away from your opponent, and an opponent attacking that base before the rocks are down would be out of position and vulnerable to runbys.
So... I dunno, was the main backdoor the problem? Or the four gold bases?
Also, I can see why Paradise Found didn't make it (especially the location of the thirds), but I'd like to hear whether there was also a particular problem with the main/nat setup (blink play?) since it is quite unusual and partly inspired by Into the Wilds.
On May 09 2014 11:05 Corazon wrote: Also Daedalus was ridiculously bad and anyone using that as a reference for their point is essentially digging themselves a hole.
Your map is cool and it does deal with the majority of imbalances. However, as a Protoss I want to only ever play on that map. Its too good for us. The chokes provide us with easy easy easy base progression with walloffs vs z. Same for terran vs zerg (mech and 4m). The amount of space you need to control at one time to be reasonably safe. The map appears to come out of early hots late wol - 2012 era approach. Its too safe and standard.
The multiplicity of chokes and limited counter attack options make aggressive 2 or 3 base play too powerful. The lack of counter attack paths add to this. I really like the idea of the main nat and 4th/backdoor third positioning. Blink able cliffs that are strong in a very dedicated attack but weak in attacks that rely on bouncing from nat to main is awesome. It is easily the most elegant way to deal with blink and I REALLY like it. Sadly the rest of the map isn't what we were looking for and has no opportunity to push meta in anyway- nor are there interesting elements to play with in multi base play.
However I think a dedicated blink play on this map would be fun to watch!
Keep that corner base concept and work with it however soul train is going to smash the backdoor third vs Z. The one size ramp you come down to defend as Z mmmmmm tasty.
Alternatively if I attack into the nat I have other ff options to help me.
Also there is one thing I think is important to think of when pushing the meta.
Cloud kingdom pushed the meta more than any other map. Daybreak helped us learn what is "standard" macro play and find safe limits.
Cloud gave us a better map though. It had a third that was just easy enough to take as toss that it encouraged it but difficult enough - at the time - that it encouraged attacks on the third.
Drop play and blink aggression were good on the map. The different attack paths provided counter options and the chokes made some bases more defensible while at the same time spreading the army.
Cloud taught toss to try and sim city to limit attack paths so we could exert space control but we could never do so so well that we didn't need to worry about the walls or air aggression.
Cloud kingdom followed the meta just enough to let us play what was standard at the time but offered enough options that new things could be explored or refined. It pushed what was possible by just enough. Some mapmakers try to push the boundaries too much and don't conform to the standard but make the standard either just a little harder or just a little less efficient.
Cloud kingdom started as a very aggressive map but turned into a more macro oriented map because the aggression while strong was just less effective on 2 base than it was on 3.
The map was amazing because it was almost standard. Almost - and it accounted for all the specific rules of its time - ffe as an option for example. This just standard enough concept is something really hard to nail and accomplish and its in my personal opinion what all mapmakers need to strive for. Slightly tougher thirds or difficult space control to secure a fifth are things that I think frost did well and that's why I like it. Its aost like a cloud kingdom in a way. When we first saw it we hated it but then grew to love it.
On May 09 2014 09:23 Plexa wrote: Nat2Nat distances By now it should be well established that less than 40s for a nat2nat distance isn't going to work. I appreciate that with 4p maps that this is difficult (close spawns often end up breaking this rule), but you should be designing around this restriction. The reason why 40s is the minimum we'll accept (and even then, ideally its 43s+) is because the rush distance becomes too short making 2 base play stronger and making it more difficult to secure later bases. Remember: most attacks are going to travel from the natural to the natural or third to the natural so that is the effective attack distance -- the main2main distance is mostly for scouting purposes (unless you did a in-base natural, of course).
How are you defining natural to natural distances?
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps.
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner.
Anyone bitching that a map has to be played before it can be judged is silly. I knew Cloud Kingdom was going to be ESV's 1st GSL map after looking at an overview for like 2 mins. I did 99.99% of my stuff off overviews, it's perfectly fine.
It's obvious when a map will suck off the overview.
I think the "Blizz rules" are so stupid, but they are what is being used so with those in mind I am sure you can disqualify maps very easily without play.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
Well let's clear a few things up. The only time anyone sees who the map makers are is when I collect the entries (they are then stored by map name only with no reference to the author). No one on the strategy team knew who were the authors of any of the maps while judging since that information was not made available to them. So map maker experience/notability simply doesn't factor into judging at all and maps are based on their merits as close as they could possibly be.
The idea of a set criteria would be nice if not for a few things a) None of the things I posted in the OP are hard and fast rules and careful execution of those concepts can be successful in the right circumstance. However as I pointed out most people are unable to employ these features successfully. b) If I did introduce the OP's suggests as a hard rule set people would (i) get mad at me for killing creativity (ii) get mad when maps who broke the rules make the final list
Ultimately those features are things which are considered standard on maps, and aspiring map makers should be well aware of those soft guidelines anyway! The only hard rule in this contest was the non-2p rule.
I appreciate that it's frustrating to not have your map played by people, but that's just never going to happen for every map submitted in this contest. With 90+ entries it's impossible to properly test each map and indeed it's been the norm for some time for the majority of cuts to be made off of overviews. Even if a hard criteria was introduced which granted qualification to testing was introduced then arguably even less maps would have been tested than we did this season... the maps we tested included some which were incredibly non-standard -- if we thought the map had merit or could potentially be interesting it was included in testing.
Should a superior way of judging maps present itself then I'm all for changing that, but as it stands nothing really offers an improvement.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps.
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner.
I think this is an important message. The judging process is tried and true and really is a side issue to the fact that this season more than any other maps contained a disproportionate number of flaws. Arguably that was because of the non-2p restriction. Hopefully the feedback provided in this thread offers map makers a way to learn from their mistakes and either move forward with fresh maps or refine the maps they submitted in this contest.
EDIT: anyway I'm done for the day. Hopefully members of the strategy team continue to answer questions while I'm asleep!
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
This this this 100% this.
Speaking from experience, both my maps that have been played in tournament settings (darkness falls & hab stat), their first submissions were both vastly different from the submissions when they actually won their map contests.
Darkness Falls had a same level main/nat, which was back in WoL so PvX was pretty much completely broken. It had a different 3rd mineral placement, it had a ton more surface area in the main and the middle was different. Pretty much when my map got top 5 in that IPL tournament I had to go back and change a bunch of stuff up because during the map tournament it turned out to be pretty imbalanced.
Habitation Station was pretty imbalanced/linear when I first submitted it for TLMC #2. If it wasn't for the Plexa, the strategy team(monk helped a ton), the skype mapping cave and a handful of pros that would message me back it would have never looked how it does today.
Even if you don't place in the top for TLMC you still should get some good feedback on what you can do to improve your maps. Both 1v1 maps I submitted had multiple entrances into the main and both had fairly unsafe naturals. In the short run when I'm creating the map I think both of those are okay and would be good ways to force innovation, but when you actually sit down and get some other feedback on it you start to realize the problems that unfold. For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps.
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner.
What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers.
It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from.
That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately.
But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =)
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder.
The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that.
But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in?
If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules!
Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is.
I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad...
First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad.
Thanks BronzeKnee for finding exactly the words I was looking for. First time on this internet that someone replicated my thoughts completely.
Just to make clear again. I am not attacking anybody personally. Your judging process is what it is. I just want to express my concern regarding your attitudes towards it.
It is not a weakness to acknowledge shortcomings and question processes. On the contrary, it is a weakness to not do it from time to time. And answers like 'this is how we have always done it' or 'trust me I am the expert' are worrying, to say the least.
On May 09 2014 23:31 ZeromuS wrote: Keep that corner base concept and work with it however soul train is going to smash the backdoor third vs Z. The one size ramp you come down to defend as Z mmmmmm tasty.
Thanks for the detailed feedback. It has confirmed my guess that Crusader wasn't not selected because of some inherent flaw but rather because it didn't fit the vision of this TLMC, in particular the "push the meta" part. Which I totally agree with, since it wasn't really designed to do that in the first place — it was more of a study how to design a four player map where every spawning pattern plays out different, and the whole point of the middle (apart from rewarding a player with map control against a turtling opponent) was to provide room for interesting tactical maneuvering rather than forcing meta changes.
However, I'm somewhat confused by the emphasized part of the quote, since the ramp down to the backdoor third is 2 wide, not 1, and Zerg will only take the backdoor base as a third when spawning cardinally and the natural is facing the opponent, in which case the third is further away and soul-training your way into it would be rather difficult (lots of semi-open space on the way there) and leave you vulnerable to counterattacks. It seems to me that attacking the natural would always be more promising, but a Zerg could then sacrifice the nat while taking out your nat, and then you have one base against two and it's not as easy as on other maps to then take out the third because there's a ramp connecting it with the main, so you can't even cut it off.
I think this is the sort of stuff that you can't easily see from an overview picture and where playtesting would be required to accurately judge the map, but since it wasn't the kind of map you were looking for anyway, this seems to be a moot point.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps.
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner.
What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers.
It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from.
That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately.
But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =)
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder.
The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that.
But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in?
If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules!
Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is.
I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad...
First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad.
That never should have happened.
I would assume that player bias doesn't get a chance to make its way through, given that the panel of judges consisted of more than 1 person. And as a mapmaker who knows what he's doing, I can tell you that the premise of your post is actually baseless. This large list of things Plexa posted, that list that you're using to attack the judging process, those are things every mapper should be doing in their maps, especially for a contest where maps are considered for ladder, these aren't rules that would have magically made submissions better, simply tips that every mapmaker should follow, and stuff that a lot of us already know honestly. If you were still at a point where these guidelines needed to be folded in, the odds of you making a winning entry at that point - guidelines or no - was already microscopic. The trouble came when some of the better mapmakers pushed things too far, in which case it served as a reminder of what we're trying to do here.
And as it's been said, breaking one of these rules - which are not hard criteria - requires you to know exactly what you're doing. Good mapmakers are capable of doing this, lesser ones simply aren't yet. An overview is almost always enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, and determine which maps deserve further testing, and I'm saying this as a top-level mapmaker, which you are not. I personally found nothing objectionable about the judging process, my only distaste was the resulting winners, which comes from the non-2p restriction. We simply weren't ready for a rule like that because we practice 2p maps more than anything else, and by a large margin. The biggest culprit was the shorter time-frame for the contest, and there was a good reason for it, so overall though the contest was less than ideal in just about every regard, it was better than nothing and I don't think there was really anything we could have done better given the circumstances.
I think there absolutely is value in the constant self-examination that lord_nibbler would instigate by questioning our processes and culture. Sometimes mappers come off as proud peacocks but I think this self questioning attitude is always there in the background, though it's hard to see from the outside. The devil is that dissent really can't find purchase against the pervading views because it would have to be borne out in testing and gameplay. In the case of meta-altering map design, this is basically impossible unless a map gets played by pros for 2-3 months. To reiterate what I said earlier, we have to rely on theorycrafting and passive observational knowledge, and for better or worse this becomes self-reinforcing. However, rest assured that there is constant discussion between mapmakers about strategies and metagame shifts and how maps influence them, based on pro matches. If only conversationally, predictions are made and data evaluated, tuning the theories. So it's not entirely baseless to say "I know something you don't", even though I don't think anyone should ever state it that way -- it is rarely the most productive tack.
I also think bronze knee has a fair point that an up front guidelines list would have made a difference in submissions, I don't see how you can really argue with that. However, the point is that we all really want maps that break these guidelines in an expert way allowing the game to evolve. So, for how the contest functions and its intended goal, would having public guidelines be better? I'm not sure it would really create more top top maps, so probably not. And anyone with a shot would have a notion of these "guidelines" anyway. Anyone else should be focusing on improvement.
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
This this this 100% this.
THIS. I would add that even outside of one's mapping prowess and success, it's really about contributing to the community and advancing the state of starcraft. To that end, it is always a good thing to have more maps in the fray. The ecology of ideas is always healthier when there is more diversity. You don't have to win map contests to succeed as a mapmaker.
On May 09 2014 21:48 Existor wrote: With your priorities and requirements, any of ladder maps can't win your Map contest at all.
With some requirements I may agree, like blinkstalker problem. But some of your requirements, like 2in1 maps, I think is too much.
Following all your requirements can lead this contest into boring and non-unique maps.
Actually, every ladder map meets these requirements (except alterzim re: space usage). So I'm not really sure what you're on about here.
Waystation doesn't match the "Accessibility of thirds" or the "Swarm Hosts" requirement depending on the spawn position Merry go round suffers from an aweful positional imbalance
Ah yes quite right. It's also not a very good map as John points out! But it does serve as yet another case study of what happens when thirds are too far. Also, what does Waystation and Alterzim have in common!
Open space. Could you please explain what's the problem with open spaces, since you keep on saying and hinting that it's a problem, don't say why... Waystation is rather anti-Protoss (in both matchups). Alterzim is rather pro-Protoss (in both matchups). Neither has to do with the open space, but with base setups (3rd base on Waystation is so far away for P) and how bad SHs are on Alterzim.
Also Frost is very open too.
Actually what I was getting at is that they're both Blizzard maps >.> ... open space is related to how easy it is to move across the map and attack and whatnot. Most good maps do interesting things with what would otherwise be open space to promote interesting army movement or strategic decisions in which bases to take and so on. Open space just kinda does nothing, except make it difficult to move out as a non-zerg.
That's just half of the story, imo. As you mention at the end, it changes how you can move out. It weakens certain playstyles and strengthens others. (e.g. Swarm Hosts are also much weaker if you can just walk around locusts) But, regardless of what it does, at the end of the day our experience shows it does not lead to balance problems. (of course combined with other features it might, but on its own, no, it has never been a problem in HotS) So why is it on the list? That is exactly what people talk about when talking about "limiting creativity". If you believe that open maps are boring and rather have every map choked up, that has nothing to do with maplimitations. Just with your own, personal preference.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps.
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner.
What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers.
It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from.
That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately.
But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =)
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder.
The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that.
But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in?
If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules!
Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is.
I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad...
First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad.
That never should have happened.
Let me further clarify something.
The list plexa wrote was something we came up with after the voting was complete on our side.
After plexa posted to finalists he asked us in our subforum - were there any specific reasons a lot of maps got disqualified - after the fact. We then went back and thought what were some common overarching issues we came across?
The above is that set of things. Plexa simply summarised it here. Not every map had all these things and not one thing would directly disqualify you.
Case in point:nimbus.
Nimbus did not break any of his stated rules in the form submitted. Not one. Why didn't we choose it? A separate issue related to a 4p rotational imbalance and architecture that effectively made TvZ too terran favoured in one position and generally t favoured in all others.
The only things we will flat out disqualify a map for are the main base ramps or lack thereof. And even then we would reach out and ask if the maker is willing to change it. Also on the topic of innovation.
Again innovation is fine. But you as a mapmaker cannot and will not turn the meta on its head. You can make current strategies less optimal. Doing so forcesshifts slowly.
Many map makers have come into this thread and said "how can we innovate if we need to allow for ffe". Easily you make pulling off a 2 base push less easy with map architecture. Thanks to this toss will either- do a new 2 base to win cuz the old ones are less effective or take a third. There now this map is pushing 3+ base play more often than 2 base. That's good. How do we push meta after that? Not sure tbh. But we need to work with a core to push the game into another direction. We can't just rewrite the core because naturals are " too easy".
On May 09 2014 23:31 ZeromuS wrote: Keep that corner base concept and work with it however soul train is going to smash the backdoor third vs Z. The one size ramp you come down to defend as Z mmmmmm tasty.
Thanks for the detailed feedback. It has confirmed my guess that Crusader wasn't not selected because of some inherent flaw but rather because it didn't fit the vision of this TLMC, in particular the "push the meta" part. Which I totally agree with, since it wasn't really designed to do that in the first place — it was more of a study how to design a four player map where every spawning pattern plays out different, and the whole point of the middle (apart from rewarding a player with map control against a turtling opponent) was to provide room for interesting tactical maneuvering rather than forcing meta changes.
However, I'm somewhat confused by the emphasized part of the quote, since the ramp down to the backdoor third is 2 wide, not 1, and Zerg will only take the backdoor base as a third when spawning cardinally and the natural is facing the opponent, in which case the third is further away and soul-training your way into it would be rather difficult (lots of semi-open space on the way there) and leave you vulnerable to counterattacks. It seems to me that attacking the natural would always be more promising, but a Zerg could then sacrifice the nat while taking out your nat, and then you have one base against two and it's not as easy as on other maps to then take out the third because there's a ramp connecting it with the main, so you can't even cut it off.
I think this is the sort of stuff that you can't easily see from an overview picture and where playtesting would be required to accurately judge the map, but since it wasn't the kind of map you were looking for anyway, this seems to be a moot point.
I am also at work on on my mobile so that added to the confusion I'll take another look when I get home on the bus now and pm you some more feedback to reflect thus fact. Sorry!
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps.
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner.
What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers.
It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from.
That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately.
But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =)
And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough.
For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder.
The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that.
But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in?
If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules!
Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is.
I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad...
First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad.
That never should have happened.
Personally I don't feel like my time was wasted. I've dicked around in the editor before, but never have I entered a serious contest. And yes, my feelings were hurt because I'm human. Zhakul Sacriledge is a pretty map, and I worked on it for days, an not only did it not win. It wasn't nominated. It wasn't even mentioned in the OP. Furthermore, 'you need to work on proportions' is a vague criticism that I'm not sure what to do with besides go back in and test it some more.
But no, none of this thread would have changed my map, because if you didn't think about things like Blink Stalker play, rush distances, high ground aggression, and so forth then you need more of a foundation in game theory. A bunch of hard rules aren't going to help you.
The best thing for the mappers would be a back and forth dialog. "There's a choke near the 3rd which I don't like, can you widen that?" "The high ground near the main is too close, tanks can hit depots." But that is not whats best for the judges and I can live with that. Talking individually with what seems like 40 or so mappers is something TL isn't equipped to do.
None of us like to lose, but in the end, this isn't only a game, but a contest based on a game. Don't take whats said here personally and use it to improve where you can.
Hopefully the next TLMC gives us more time to judge so that we can for some maps - not anywhere near all- discuss more with the map maker and provide better feedback.
I wrote it back in WoL, but it touches on a lot of the same concepts that are mentioned here. In my opinion, it was a very good resource to refer to before entering this contest and it showed what a typical judge would look for when judging a map.
It's interesting to see that in this contest, TLMC, Habitation Station finished I believe in the top 10-12 in internal voting, just short of being a finalist. The mapper, SidianTheBard, and I have a back and forth and I gave him some feedback through PM as well. You can see the old version that was submitted to TLMC2 in this post. After changing some stuff from the feedback, SidianTheBard resubmitted it for TLMC3 and won 2nd place, eventually getting it to be a ladder map. (Btw I wasn't a judge for TLMC3.) I want to note that the changes he made addressed all the concerns I had with it and in the end result, it was a much better map.
On May 09 2014 10:09 BronzeKnee wrote: What is really sad about the whole thing is the list of constraints on map makers grows, because of imbalances... (Blink Stalkers, Swarmhosts, Forcefields ect...)
Well, Blink rushes TvP are just broken. The other two... Forcefields make it hard to have too chokey maps, though that is not just on FFs. As said, chokes are good for early ZvZ as well. Chokey maps can be quite tricky in general because turtling becomes very strong.
Swarm Hosts however... no clue what he is talking about. It's not like strong Swarm Host maps would have been inherently broken. Heavy Rain, Habitation Station, Newkirk, Overgrowth - the best SH maps we had up to now are all pretty balanced maps, at least for PvZ, where Swarm Host scenarios matters most. I'd really like to know about ONE example of a map that was too strong for SHs. Same goes about the comment about open space (with the Alterzim example). No clue what the problem is with having large open areas in a map (not that Alterzim is a good map, but I don't see how that open space is contributing to the Protoss dominance on that map).
I'll let Whitewing answer this:
On May 09 2014 12:33 Whitewing wrote:
When there was only one real attack path on a map in which swarmhosts would block, that's a problem, especially given how hard it is to attack via air due to a lack of real air paths. If you have to circle the entire map to drop, that's not a good thing.
yeah, which map does that apply to? Maps with only one attack path and hard to drop on are in general going to be extremely boring and blockable with various strategies. And are probably going to be broken in TvP long before they are broken for SH play.
I remembered... SHs were pretty broken on daybreak. Whether this still applies with the much better counterstrategies is of course up for discussion. But yeah, i guess certain setups (like that short 4th to 4th) are probably limited by SHs.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
Yep. More to the point, how the hell do you have internal requirements which cut off certain maps even before the judging and release the requirements after the fact? No one will want to spend time making a map for the contest if there is a chance of constrictions they weren't made aware of.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
Yep. More to the point, how the hell do you have internal requirements which cut off certain maps even before the judging and release the requirements after the fact? No one will want to spend time making a map for the contest if there is a chance of constrictions they weren't made aware of.
The only such requirement was that the map follow ladder standards, and I'm pretty sure people knew that. The list is comprised of things good mappers already should be following - it's like going into a marathon by demonstrating, step by step, how to walk and run. Anyone that really got anything out of that advice isn't going to be winning.
Hey look. If you have feedback for the strategy team we're all ears. But this post does nothing but make baseless accusations. Moreover, if you could be specific about the things you find appalling that might be a good start.
I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!"
Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective.
This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time.
And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility.
Yep. More to the point, how the hell do you have internal requirements which cut off certain maps even before the judging and release the requirements after the fact? No one will want to spend time making a map for the contest if there is a chance of constrictions they weren't made aware of.
The only such requirement was that the map follow ladder standards, and I'm pretty sure people knew that. The list is comprised of things good mappers already should be following - it's like going into a marathon by demonstrating, step by step, how to walk and run. Anyone that really got anything out of that advice isn't going to be winning.
A big problem with those rules is this particular sentence in the TLMC4 announcement:
Maps which encourage the meta-game to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well.
I think that a lot of people took this as a sign that deviation from established map design principles was encouraged, especially in regards to naturals and the accessibility of thirds, so I'm not surprised that publishing the list of general rules (which really reads like your typical "how to create a decent map 101") after the contest left some mapmakers who thought TLMC wanted them to bend those very rules with a sour aftertaste. Even more so because the quote seemed to imply that more rigorous testing than usual would be taking place (because how else are you going to judge the effect a map has on the meta?) while in fact the exact opposite was the case.
A single sentence such as "maps should adhere to established map design conventions and not try to re-invent the wheel" could have prevented this confusion.
Maps which encourage the meta-game to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well.
I think that a lot of people took this as a sign that deviation from established map design principles was encouraged, especially in regards to naturals and the accessibility of thirds, so I'm not surprised that publishing the list of general rules (which really reads like your typical "how to create a decent map 101") after the contest left some mapmakers who thought TLMC wanted them to bend those very rules with a sour aftertaste. Even more so because the quote seemed to imply that more rigorous testing than usual would be taking place (because how else are you going to judge the effect a map has on the meta?) while in fact the exact opposite was the case.
A single sentence such as "maps should adhere to established map design conventions and not try to re-invent the wheel" could have prevented this confusion.
almost forgot about that quote, one big troll is what it is.
Maps which encourage the meta-game to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well.
I think that a lot of people took this as a sign that deviation from established map design principles was encouraged, especially in regards to naturals and the accessibility of thirds, so I'm not surprised that publishing the list of general rules (which really reads like your typical "how to create a decent map 101") after the contest left some mapmakers who thought TLMC wanted them to bend those very rules with a sour aftertaste. Even more so because the quote seemed to imply that more rigorous testing than usual would be taking place (because how else are you going to judge the effect a map has on the meta?) while in fact the exact opposite was the case.
A single sentence such as "maps should adhere to established map design conventions and not try to re-invent the wheel" could have prevented this confusion.
Firstly, NewSunshine pretty much summed it up. Everything in the OP are things that the best map makers are aware of and adhere to for all intents and purposes.
Secondly, there was a statement about the maps needing to be ladder appropriate. While admittedly that was in conjunction with removing any anti-ladder features like rising lava, there was an option to PM me directly to ask if your map was ladder appropriate.
Thirdly, that line has been used in all TLMCs (at least some variation on it has), it hasn't really caused issues in the past (except when all that "standard" maps won in TLMC2).
Fifth, unless your contest explicitly is looking to challenge some of the ideas in the OP it's highly likely that any reasonable judging team will use similar metrics to the OP in order to determine the maps they like the most. Rather than interpreting this as a ruleset that was magically made up to judge maps against, you should see this as a break down of the thought process the judges had when evaluating the maps. When you put yourself in a similar position I think you'll go through similar motions. This information should be considered whenever you submit to a contest which will have judges assessing your map to maximise the chance that they will look at your map favorably.
Sixth, I appreciate that people are disappointed in the contest for whatever reason (be it because they didn't place, because they feel the contest mislead them, etc.) but I would hope that people are able to learn from this contest and improve as mappers. For instance, in your particular instance Crusader was starting to hint at all the things which makes a great map. Last season Uvantak submitted Seunos Pacificos (or something like that) which was the unofficial 8th placing map in TLMC3. He obviously built on those foundations in this contest and I think if you keep at it you have every opportunity to make an impact on the mapping scene.
Firstly, NewSunshine pretty much summed it up. Everything in the OP are things that the best map makers are aware of and adhere to for all intents and purposes.
Sorry, but I think that's simply not true. Especially the top mapmakers have been trying to find ways to deviate from established map design conventions, just take a look at Habitation Station for a successful example. See also both SidianTheBard's TLMC4 1v1 submissions and eTcetRa's Dominion Rose for maps that clearly try to make layouts work that are excluded by the rules in the OP. And those guys definitely belong to the "best map makers".
Overall, I think you're missing my point. I'm not complaining that those rules are there. As I said, they really are just your typical map design checklist. The problem I see is that those rules appear to be considered hard rules, while (some of) the mapmakers looked at them as soft rules. Which is totally understandable considering Habitation Station's success and the sentence I quoted in my previous post.
Basically, a mapmaker thinks "Okay, so you can't FFE on this map, but it's still alright because of X and Y" while your attitude is "FFE isn't viable so it's automatically a bad map". I just think that could have been communicated better (in advance).
It's not something that applies to me anyway; I just wanted to show you why I think that those who are complaining aren't complaining about nothing. This isn't related to the maps I submitted at all.
On May 14 2014 22:21 Plexa wrote: Sixth, I appreciate that people are disappointed in the contest for whatever reason (be it because they didn't place, because they feel the contest mislead them, etc.) but I would hope that people are able to learn from this contest and improve as mappers.
As a map maker who made the finals in all earlier TLMC I sure am disappointed not to place this time. Even worse my map is quoted as an example of bad features / mistakes... :D
on a more serious note - very serious actually - i would like to see more time spend in communication with possible finalists. As my map was quoted for something like too little difference between open areas and chokes or too tight chokes overall respectively, i feel like that there are things that sometimes (can) go wrong on some maps - that actually have some potential - and would be worth a second look after judges forward their criticism to the map's author. e.g. that map would be good without XWT, that map would make it with smaller/bigger chokes, etc. Often things take very little time to adjust, etc.
so this is in no way meant as a criticism on TLMC4, yet looking towards future contests I think this would help map makers on all levels to understand and appreciate feedback, because they are given the chance to adjust the map in a second phase. actually that could mean you involve more map makers in the second phase that you initially think have a chance. but when i look at the results of this tlmc i feel like the pool could be much more dense with higher quality maps, if map makers had time to look at the maps again.
i assume sending out feedback on 20 maps out of 100 can still be reasonable enough and from these you go down to 5. I am sure you had discussed a pool of that size anyway before you decided on the final picks.
edit: this is something i had mentioned in privat chat with some people already, et i felt like repeating this idea again here in public.