you can also get the map name for an online replay directly from the java client. click on the replay in question, then click the "download more information" button at the bottom. map name is then displayed in the left panel as "ScenarioFile". Depending on monitor resolution you might need to drag the separator between the columns at the top of this panel to see the full name (hover your mouse to the left of "value" to find this separator). unfortunately there's no easy copy paste.
About Neroxis map generator...
If these generated maps were user made, the community wouldn't even be giving them a chance.
The community has been enjoying custom games on random maps for a while now. The product is already more than good enough for me and a lot of other players, regardless of whatever unforgivable flaws you might find with it. A quick search in the replay vault shows around 30 daily MapGen games. Compare that with ~7 games/day on Adaptive Step Forward, one of M&M Team's Top Picks. Whether or not random maps would be played if they were handmade is not really a constructive hypothetical @biass, the reality is that they are being played more than the vast majority of maps released in the last few years and their popularity continues to grow. All the more reason for veteran map makers like you to bring your experience to bear and help make them even better.
If you really wanted to set up some equivalent comparison for what the "community" wants, you would look at how often the median person plays map gen vs authored maps.
Not how often one, singular map compares to map gen.
I think that is a flawed argument ftx, you can't compare the playtime of every faf map in existence vs map gen which has not seen wide popularity until recently. You should be comparing the average relative quality/enjoyment of playing map gen vs playing a 'standard' map. Playtime=/= fun. Look at dual gap
The point of map gen isn't to have a 'perfect' map, its to have a NEW map, and that is the point I think you are missing. Its really really fun to play something that you and your opponent are completely unfamiliar with, and actually try and figure shit out on the fly. Its not like clicking ladder and finding yourself on daroza's and knowing the first 6 minutes of gameplay require a hard wired build, with at least 10-15 minutes going by before any meaningful player interaction outside of the initial drop to secure expo. At that point it doesn't even feel like playing.
I have played more map gen then ladder this last month, although admittedly it is partly due to the 'look, new!' effect of it. That being said, I would absolutely love for it to be incorporated into ladder. I have had more then 80% of my matches on map gen end up being very enjoyable, which is more then I can say for ladder. And I personally do not see the over-emphasis on map 'aesthetics' to be such a high metric for map quality. But I guess seeing as how you don't actually play ladder maps, you need to evaluate them somehow...
My only complaints with map gen are the following: Terrain isn't always obvious (quick camera angle viewing fixes it) and that after a while (20+ games), some of the maps can seem to be fairly similar. That being said, even for some of the 'similar' maps, I could make the same complaints for a few of the maps I have seen in ladder pool. There is only so much variation you can have imo.
I would really like to see 10-20% of ladder games be map gen for a month, gauge reception then. Its really nice to have something new to play on, rather then the same old same old, and the no build order whoring aspect is amazing.
It gets considered for a matchmaker queue when it meets matchmaker queue standards. This is what I told Sheikah years ago when I started helping him out and it's the standard now. There is no reception to gauge when it doesn't meet the standards of matchmaker.
- We can compare it over just today. 95-98% of maps will still be authored maps.
- I never made this argument, the dude I responded to did. I'm the one trying to showcase that it is a stupid argument, so why you think I'm unaware of this is beyond me.
- I gauge relative quality by the matchmaker criteria I have.
Map Gen & BO:
The BO impact is overstated. The thing map gen stops is precise builds built around certain maps where you can quickly snowball into a victory. This means that the people most likely to see an impact from map gen in halting BO gameplay are those at the absolute highest tier of ladder. One could even argue that true BO gameplay is barely even seen outside of tournaments. There are people like Blackheart that just go and play a game on ladder, get Regor, go all in spam down mid, and beat 2200 rated players. Yeah, great BO gameplay there.
Everyone else? Their version of BO gameplay is recognizing where it's important to send engies. Or whether quicker air or more land is more impactful. Or including tree groups in their build. These will all exist in both map gen and in authored maps. Top players themselves barely play ladder enough to recognize the new maps that were in it for 6 months and that I then put into LotS. It's only then that they actually make a BO for it, and then they proceed to forget it after.
Even paradoxically, the dudes complaining about BO gameplay fail to see that map gen maps tend to be the exact sort of setup of BO maps in ladder where you secure middle through efficient early trades and then snowball into victory later. It's just new feature rose glasses.
- I don't rate aesthetics for ladder maps, try again.
- Aesthetics aren't what holds map gen back from being implemented.
Make better posts.
A quick search in the replay vault
This comparison is pretty irrelevant and useless. Dunno why you picked a map at random when you know there are plenty of maps out there that easily make this comparison work in favor of author maps.
You also know there was a tournament going on, and that it would temporarily increase the amount of mapgen maps played.
You even had this part in your post, but edited it out in one of your 28 total edits to this post. Why did you do this?
I know you tried to use a top pick map to increase the relevancy, but server admins have not yet updated to include my new list.
The map you chose isn't actually on my top picks list.
Whether or not random maps would be played if they were handmade is not really a constructive hypothetical @biass,
You have not said anything to justify why this is not the case. I've highlighted the opinion that a lot of support is based around novelty and the fact that the item is "new" - A basic FAF trend, and that forcing an incomplete product onto the playerbase will end in disaster when the novelty factor wears off. After all, random map generators without a lot of variance will be very similar after a larger number of games played and you start to notice trends. I can make a "map" that is essentially the same as a "tournament" seed mapgen map in about 5 minutes now, I give other players about 2 weeks before they also figure it out.
All the more reason for veteran map makers like you to bring your experience to bear and help make them even better.
Don't see how, I contribute to faf by making maps. If I wanted to go and work on code, i'll go and work on my front-end projects that provide more real world value.
This is not me trying to make threats, but if author maps go the way of the dodo, i'll go map somewhere else. I just wouldn't see the point of being here. People will contribute what they choose to contribute, same goes for devs or anyone else.
And I personally do not see the over-emphasis on map 'aesthetics' to be such a high metric for map quality.
I primarily rate asthetics on maps as part of the ladder team.
Map asthetics do not just focus around the specific beauty of a map, but also issues that come from that such as being unable to see ramps, failure to convey important information, etc.
My only complaints with map gen are the following: Terrain isn't always obvious
After downplaying the relevance of the map asthetics rating, you immediately complain about a map asthetics issue.
Without the rating, I could change the lighting on a map in such a way that you literally couldn't see mountains, and not have it be a major impact on the map's overall score. Do you see why asthetics is needed now?
Please do not try and be "superior" about it because you "play" ladder maps.
The word aesthetics is related more to artistic expression/beauty/taste, less so functionality. If I knew you were using aesthetics to mean map readability/ease of comprehension I would not have contradicted myself like you pointed out. Which is why I mentioned it in the closing statement of my post that I found it to be an issue...
if only we could point out minor misunderstandings without aggression, we would be having a productive conversation instead of an antagonistic one
Yeah the tone of this thread is kinda depressing.
Anyway, I can't help but notice that the high rated 1v1 players in this thread (and in the mapgen tourney thread) are really interested in seeing this in ladder, perhaps an experimental month of the 1800+ bonus maps being mapgen would be worth it. I can't really see what the risk is to be honest, high level ladder stays dead and people complain about ugly/unfun/bugged/imba maps? What's the change?
Maybe I should clarify: what I find nice about random maps is they enable spammy, active gameplay as opposed to turtle eco play. As the player count goes up, handmade maps quickly develop metas where you are expected to focus on air or eco or turtle in certain slots. It's true that for both 1v1 and 2v2, there are a lot of handmade maps that do this as well, so this aspect is not really relevant to any decision about including generated maps in ladder. I suppose what I'm getting at is that mapgen games serve me better than handmade maps when hosting all welcome games, especially in 4v4+ format, if the goal is to get new players to play actively.
Regarding contributions I'd love to see mapmakers make, one particular one is more diverse biomes / looks. If I remember correctly, Sheikah said coding experience is not needed help in this regard, but I don't know the details.
perhaps an experimental month of the 1800+ bonus maps being mapgen would be worth it.
Adding random maps to the pool requires code as Askaholic has been saying in this thread. It's not a matter of "just try it" here. If you need a reason to play more mapgen maps, I suggest you start a temporary WWPC mapgen league.
nine2 said in About Neroxis map generator...:
Pointless moral meandering that only serves to derail the thread.
Don't really care about if you're for or against mapgen, I don't give a rats.
But if you are for mapgen, dont excuse "aggressive" comments made by people who are also for mapgen, and then immediately jump onto comments made in a similar vein, only that they're now against mapgen.
Backseat moderating is already unacceptable, be consistent about it.
one particular one is more diverse biomes / looks.
As to me,map gen would fix some problems of the current ladder->premade BO's.
Random maps would enforce people to adapt and get more flexible however the question is: will people play ladder if this gets implemented?is it even worth making such a decision and lose a bigger player base on each skill level?
queuing with a newbie to show him the beauty of tmm and meeting tagada be like:
People always tend to prefer things they know, when they have a choice. This is why the mapgen can do what handmade maps cannot.
If a person goes into the map vault, they see a bunch of maps they have never seen alongside ones that they already now, and their brain is automatically going to dismiss the maps they dont't know because anything thats new is frightening on a primitive human level.
The mapgen solves this problem by frontloading that choice:
- Do you want to play an unknown map or not?
And then forcing you to stay with that choice by preventing your brain from categorizing it as just another map and therefore reverting your decision to try something new. So the way in which the mapgen creates an advantage is not necessarily by just creating unknown maps, but psychologycally.
Of course the mapgen should eventually still reach higher level of quality. But its important to realize how important the UI is here.
Lets assume that there is a way for the client to automatically select a handmade map that
- Follows some easy to use filters (size, amount of water, etc.) similar to map generator
- Guarantuess to select a map that is generally not very actively played by the community and of certain minimum quality
- Introduces some sort of UI-barrier to backpedalling from the decision to play something new
Then maybe handmade maps could in some way fullfill the same function that the mapgen does. However, we dont have that kind of UI for handmade maps, and as long as it is that way, people will resort to the mapgen to play unknown maps instead of simply selecting a not much played handmade map.
The mapgen also crates some sort of unspoken contract: The map is guarantueed to be new to everybody (in reality thats not true because you can regenerate a seed, but this is still the expectation that people have). This is of course very hard to replicate with handmade maps.
Could participants in this thread please stop assuming that everybody else argues in bad faith or against their interests? Turning this thread into a mapgen vs handmade war will not create many usefull insights on this topic. Too late probably.
Ok now i want to look at the far future.
Arguably there is still a lot of time until map generator maps reach a level of quality where somebody like FTX will replace 100% of the 1v1 queue with random maps. But still.
Lets make some likely assuptions:
- The quality of the map generator maps will improve, to a point where most people (except handmade map makers) will not notice the difference in asthetic quality.
- More and more people will like the notion of a guarantuee that makes BO-whoring impossible, and we make it so this is actually enforcable (we mark mapgen maps that where created from known seeds vs newly generated as such). What doesnt matter is if BO-whoring is actually a problem, what matters is if people perceive it as a problem and want that guarantuee in ladder.
If we make these assumptions, it should be quite easy to see, that after a long period of transition, the endgame is AOE2, in other words, the death of handmade maps in competitive play. You might disagree with those assumptions, but please think about wether you actually disagree with them OR if you just dont want to follow through to the conclusion, maybe because this conclusion is subjectively horrifying.
Now, in that scenario, a lot of people will just not care and go with it, some people will be sad, and handmade maps will fight a war for dominance, that they will slowly and agonizinly loose as more and more players desire the things that mapgen can provide. This thread is a good indicator for how that will look like imo.
Now, there is another hidden asumption here:
- Handmade maps mostly stay as they are know
But we could change this if we want. We already have adaptive maps. What if handmade maps could provide the same guarantuess that generated maps could in terms of BO-whoring?
- Predefined mex groups that sometimes appear and sometimes not.
- Mexes that slightly move position
- Several possible positions for hydros to appear, sometimes they dont appear at all.
- Same for big wrecks
Im not saying we need to do this. But if the first too assumptions hold, i think that handmade maps need to evolve in the long term. And i think they can, and anyway discussing how that would look like would be much more productive than descussing how far along the trajectory mapgen maps are right now.
In in additon to that, we can think about maybe a better way to present handmade maps or allow players to select them, but that is mo harder to achieve.
I think map gen in ladder pool is great and I'm sure it would greatly increase ladder acitivity much like TMM brought back people to the game.
I think its something fresh and new and thats what video games need to stay alive.
Therefore I recommend easing your usual selection criteria for ladder pool in favour of map gen. Try it out, you wont be dissappointed. And if its shit and people complain: ooohh kkaaaayy remove it the next cycle.
If we were to implement this and have mapGen introduced into ladder and TMM, how would that happen? who would have the know-how to code it in?
do we all mostly agree that this should happen?
It’s not too much work, but it will require some changes to the database schema, which means it will take a while for logistical reasons.
I have to say as someone that has always viewed ladder as more of a chore, and not something purely to have fun, playing mapgen 1v1s has actually been fun, even playing vs people like Blodir and Tex where I have a reasonable assumption I will not win. I personally believe that in the future, having it show up in ladder would be a plus.
if only we could point out minor misunderstandings without aggression, we would be having a productive conversation instead of an antagonistic one
It would be nice if people would do their research and ask questions rather accuse the councilors of being unrealistic. For example, Tex, you need to actually respond to me when I say "you are on the ladder team" and not just be like "wait, what?!" ask where to go, see things, and interact. I see a lot of forum complaining rather meaningful action.
I see faults at both sides: explosions from the councilors for incompetence when they could show resources; and I also see people making ignorant complaints, unwilling to help with problems.
You cannot blame someone for losing their cool when they are constantly under attack and receive little help to meet the demands of many.