|
On October 24 2012 01:00 MarcusRife wrote: Did Apple gather statistical evidence that the Iphone would be successful or did they just make it? When you are being innovative there is nothing for you to look at as your model. You just need to have balls and go for it.
This. It doesn't matter what would be ideal and what might not work. We can either try or not try. Still planning to talk about map selection at some point, but I want to tie it to a concrete plan which I am formulating.
|
On October 24 2012 02:02 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 01:00 MarcusRife wrote: Did Apple gather statistical evidence that the Iphone would be successful or did they just make it? When you are being innovative there is nothing for you to look at as your model. You just need to have balls and go for it.
This. It doesn't matter what would be ideal and what might not work. We can either try or not try. Still planning to talk about map selection at some point, but I want to tie it to a concrete plan which I am formulating. You mean "Do, or Do Not, there is no Try."
sry, had to be done. >.<
@ SiskosGoatee -- I do not really see why it is difficult to envision some kind of representative group that will relatively speak for all of us. Just a random showing, you, me, EatThePath, Barrin, Monitor, Samro, and Plexa/Nighmarjoo for the sake of argument. I don't know if I got a representative from all the teams but that was my intention. Anyway, you grab a representative of each team, a random independant or two, a TL mod and/or legacy mapmaker, maybe even a player or a caster ot both, some group that represents a wide stripe of the plural opinion. I think that if a group like this were to put their heads together and differences aside to rally behind a more or less common goal, it lends credence to the recommendations of the group rather than hesitation about their motives. In that way, TPW still needs to lobby specifically for their maps, ESV theirs, etc.
Now the reason why I think a "dream team" of this sort might be better than say simply letting everyone just keep fending for themselves without such a council is that the status quo, as has been mentioned, isn't really working, and a more or less unified voice has a way of reach out to more people. It also gives something that all of us can get behind in a more formalized way. Whether or not the specific ideal form of this has been mentioned thus far, can you not see at all a way in which this could be useful?
I think what exactly it will be used for is still up for debate, but I can see at least *a way* that it could work.
|
I like the way you framed that, hyp.
btw, this is an interesting thread that you might find illuminating, particularly on the topic of community support / custom game system.
|
On October 24 2012 02:02 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 01:00 MarcusRife wrote: Did Apple gather statistical evidence that the Iphone would be successful or did they just make it? When you are being innovative there is nothing for you to look at as your model. You just need to have balls and go for it.
This. It doesn't matter what would be ideal and what might not work. We can either try or not try. Still planning to talk about map selection at some point, but I want to tie it to a concrete plan which I am formulating. Apple had data in the form of Blackberry acquiring its fond nickname, the "Crackberry", on top of sales metrics from these potential competitors such as Blackberry's maker, RIM. It's not hard to hypothesize "if smartphone owners really love their smartphones, and if we create a smartphone that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful". Apple has always introduced products that fall under one of three categories:
1. Up and coming market that shows a lot of promise 2. Established market that shows viability, but resting on its laurels 3. Established market that has not yet made big waves in selling to consumers
As examples, the Lisa and Macintosh would fall under category 1, the iPod and iPhone would fall under category 2, while the iPad would fall under category 3. The iPad is most certainly not the first tablet computer to have seen the light of day; previous attempts by companies like Microsoft to sell tablets to consumers ended up flopping. You can blame it on the interface (stylus), "the technology just wasn't there yet", whatever you want, but tablets did have a steady market in the business sector. While everyone abandoned tablets for consumers for this reason, Apple took another look at it. We're talking late 90's, early 2000's. The concept for the iPad actually came before the iPhone; the iPhone is a by-product of the design process undergone in creating the iPad. Steve Jobs realized they were onto something, said "let's make a phone" while realizing that targeting a successful consumer market had a better chance than going after the consumer failure first, and shelved the iPad until the iPhone proved the design to be a success.
That said, there's been way too much conversation about business decisions and what-not for me to really try and get back into the discussion, but I did want to address this pretty obvious lack of understanding in business mentality, particularly Apple's business mentality (which I follow quite closely, owning pretty much Apple products exclusively these days). I think that tweet snapshot between Sundance and Timetwister summarized quite well the reality -- namely the disconnect -- between tournament organizers and mapmakers.
|
On October 24 2012 04:15 iamcaustic wrote:
Apple had data in the form of Blackberry acquiring its fond nickname, the "Crackberry", on top of sales metrics from these potential competitors such as Blackberry's maker, RIM. It's not hard to hypothesize "if smartphone owners really love their smartphones, and if we create a smartphone that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful". Apple has always introduced products that fall under one of three categories:
I was making an analogy and they are never perfect.
I think what I was trying to say has been misunderstood, so let me clarify. Obviously Apple had good reasons to believe that their product was going to be successful but I don't think those reasons were statistical in nature. I will use caustic's template to show how Sundance should maybe think about this, taking an innovators mindset, to respond to the points about numerically proving new maps will do good things.
If fans of starcraft really love watching games, and we create a tournament that introduces new maps that make games more dynamic and interesting that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful.
|
^___^
we can either try, or not try...
|
On October 24 2012 04:50 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 04:15 iamcaustic wrote:
Apple had data in the form of Blackberry acquiring its fond nickname, the "Crackberry", on top of sales metrics from these potential competitors such as Blackberry's maker, RIM. It's not hard to hypothesize "if smartphone owners really love their smartphones, and if we create a smartphone that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful". Apple has always introduced products that fall under one of three categories:
I was making an analogy and they are never perfect. I think what I was trying to say has been misunderstood, so let me clarify. Obviously Apple had good reasons to believe that their product was going to be successful but I don't think those reasons were statistical in nature. I will use caustic's template to show how Sundance should maybe think about this, taking an innovators mindset, to respond to the points about numerically proving new maps will do good things. If fans of starcraft really love watching games, and we create a tournament that introduces new maps that make games more dynamic and interesting that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful. Not completely wrong, but the key is doing the legwork and showing businessmen like Sundance how and why that will result in more eyeballs and more revenue. So far all the data has pointed to making sure that the absolute best players are participating in your tournament if you want people watching.
This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
On that note, I'm incredibly happy to see more and more posts from the general community talking about the stale map pool, because that makes it a relevant and appealing pitch to tournaments, and one I've been using in my limited discussions with them*. If public perception shifts toward desiring a map pool that's consistently refreshed on a reasonable basis, tournaments will warm up to the idea.
* Don't expect too much out of this statement. I'm by no means attempting to be an advocate for the mapmaking scene as a whole. I'm hardly qualified, and even if I was, I wouldn't attempt it without general community approval. Also, keyword is "limited".
|
On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant.
Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up.
I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish.
|
I have a question about this. I made some maps, most were fairly bad. Would this "union" accept my maps, or is it only maps made by members of the "union."
Simply put, is this something you have to join, or is this something you submit maps to and they will promote them if they like them?
|
@mono: I don't think anyone wants it to be membership based. They wouldn't discriminate between maps other than on merit. Of course that is a tricky issue itself. But it would not be exclusive in any way. I think the opposite is the goal.
@Marcus: the reason is "if it's not broken, don't fix it". The tournament map pool dynamic, including all segment of the community, is the result of complacency. Since Mr. Chae is the only one with the backbone to introduce new non-Blizzard maps, there is little incentive for others to "gamble", since they can use those new maps if they want and there's no big downside to being behind the curve on map rotation.
The universal adoption of the new Blizzard maps is a flat contradiction of that mindset, though. Blizzard is known to make questionable maps. They feel comfortable selecting from them, though. Why not select maps from other sources? Same answer, don't rock the boat, complacency. (That is not a judgement, just an explanation.) As caustic said, the focus remains on the main point: headline players for headline games.
-----------
The tournaments that tried to use new maps did so out of the conviction, like ours, that it's the best for the game, including its spectator value. This is why I've had little patience with the "we need to convince them better" argument, which I guess only applies to MLG? I don't see how that's going to work. It would be based on numbers, not vehemence or insight. So in any case you need to get the community behind it. It's the same thing said two different ways.
|
On October 24 2012 05:56 Monochromatic wrote: I have a question about this. I made some maps, most were fairly bad. Would this "union" accept my maps, or is it only maps made by members of the "union."
Simply put, is this something you have to join, or is this something you submit maps to and they will promote them if they like them?
don't get caught with the name. it does not have to be a union and it is unclear if there is anything like being a member or not. i am critical of such a thing, because the it was like a big and bad team in the end.
there are no clear strategies so far and most can be discussed, so feel free to share your ideas.
the way i see it the "council" shout be the organ for the melee map making scene here and regularly highlight the best maps produced. it is unclear if this council could be an expert group, an elected group, map maker/producer directed "voice" or just a promoter of a public voted best map list.
|
On October 24 2012 06:16 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:56 Monochromatic wrote: I have a question about this. I made some maps, most were fairly bad. Would this "union" accept my maps, or is it only maps made by members of the "union."
Simply put, is this something you have to join, or is this something you submit maps to and they will promote them if they like them? don't get caught with the name. it does not have to be a union and it is unclear if there is anything like being a member or not. i am critical of such a thing, because the it was like a big and bad team in the end. there are no clear strategies so far and most can be discussed, so feel free to share your ideas. the way i see it the "council" shout be the organ for the melee map making scene here and regularly highlight the best maps produced. it is unclear if this council could be an expert group, an elected group, map maker/producer directed "voice" or just a promoter of a public voted best map list. good summary of the ideas so far ^^
|
On October 24 2012 05:55 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans. To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant. Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up. I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish. To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be.
Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work.
Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months.
In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working.
|
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 24 2012 05:55 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans. To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant. Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up. I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish. To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be. + Show Spoiler +
Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work.
Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months.
In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working.
you are right, the current map pool is fairly balanced. lets just stop producing more maps. strange attitude. i mean i see where you are coming from, but what would be your starting point to make things "better"? do you have any ideas or wishes?
and a general problem i have with your critique:
empirical evidence is just impossible in this case.
so as a first step tp get productive again: could just everybody focus on making better maps? i mean, this is the only thing i feel i could try to do right now...
and as a second step and getting back at nice exercise for you: explain why which actually is a good idea:
Please write (yes, YOU, everybody!) what map should be in the map pool instead of map x and why. If you think such a map is not yet produced, than say what features this map should have.
in such a process, people would stand up for someone else's map and say "I support map X, it should be in the mappool instead of map y, because...". this would lead to a more elaborated critique and no more "i know what the mappool should be like-fuck blizzard attitude" . I mean, just to get a picture what people here think.
only thinking about a structure surely gets us nowhere. but saying all ideas are doomed, when peopl try to get somethig going doesn't help either.
Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale.
i do not see where this would differ from most believes. what we need is a bit more better maps to create more visibility and slowly initiate more(!) and regular map rotation with hopefully very similar map pools
|
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:55 MarcusRife wrote:On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans. To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant. Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up. I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish. To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be. Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation. I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work. Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months. In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working. Why do I argue with you, that is the real question. We don't actually disagree on anything substantial. But I must. ><
I think map teams were primarily for making better maps in inception. Crux can't be compared because it's just a wrapper for the 2-3 guys that Mr. Chae tapped prior to even beginning GSL to make maps (following the BW model). This is somewhat like Diamond putting together the ESV map team. Promoting map rotation is a natural extension for the mapping community because we're passionate about maps, but it should never have fallen to us. I don't think any mapmakers should be blamed when literally every other segment of the SC2 scene could and should have been putting in as much or more effort. We need more people like Morrow, for example.
That said, you're entirely right that a campaign of metered persuasion and raising popular and professional support would be better than anything yet attempted.
samro- and a general problem i have with your critique: is just impossible in this case. Yes, but that is acknowledged in the need for propounding the qualitative reasons why new maps should be used. The evidence for a particular map would be enthusiasm for it displayed by the community. As an aside, I totally agree with you that it'd be pretty easy to reach a consensus amongst mappers for satisfactory maps to remove and a small group of candidates to put in.
|
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: you are right, the current map pool is fairly balanced. lets just stop producing more maps. strange attitude. i mean i see where you are coming from, but what would be your starting point to make things "better"? do you have any ideas or wishes? Read the post you're replying to more fully? Not sure how else to respond to this question.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote:and a general problem i have with your critique: is just impossible in this case. You might note I say this in my post immediately after:
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. Its impossibility is the point I'm trying to get across. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: Please write (yes, YOU, everybody!) what map should be in the map pool instead of map x and why. If you think such a map is not yet produced, than say what features this map should have.
in such a process, people would stand up for someone else's map and say "I support map X, it should be in the mappool instead of map y, because...". this would lead to a more elaborated critique and no more "i know what the mappool should be like-fuck blizzard attitude" . I mean, just to get a picture what people here think.
only thinking about a structure surely gets us nowhere. but saying all ideas are doomed, when peopl try to get somethig going doesn't help either. Wrong. You didn't seem to take anything away from the post you're responding to, or at best, excruciatingly cherry-picked quotes you wanted to respond to far out of their original context and intent.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: i do not see where this would differ from most believes. what we need is a bit more better maps to create more visibility and slowly initiate more(!) and regular map rotation with hopefully very similar map pools Just making good maps, posting them on a barely viewed sub-forum on a community site, and hoping they get noticed by businesses doesn't create more visibility. If it did, the mapmaking community wouldn't be thinking up ideas like unions to improve the situation. It's also not up to us to initiate more/consistent map rotation in tournaments. That's up to the tournaments. The best we can do is make a solid case why such a thing is beneficial to them; I talk about this in my last post.
... You did read the post in full, right?
|
On October 24 2012 06:51 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +samro- and a general problem i have with your critique: empirical evidence is just impossible in this case. Yes, but that is acknowledged in the need for propounding the qualitative reasons why new maps should be used. The evidence for a particular map would be enthusiasm for it displayed by the community.
We could have more interesting 2p maps than cross-only 4p maps or even worse 4p maps that better should have forced spawn, but do not in some cases.
and sure, antiga produces good games and daybreak is a really good map, but even these will go at some point. it is just fun to try new stuff. i'll leave the discussion here and try to make a fun map
edit: ok, i hate to those this i quote you quote thing, but let's go through it, you seem to be a very precise person
On October 24 2012 06:55 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: you are right, the current map pool is fairly balanced. lets just stop producing more maps. strange attitude. i mean i see where you are coming from, but what would be your starting point to make things "better"? do you have any ideas or wishes? Read the post you're replying to more fully? Not sure how else to respond to this question.
i did. yet i wanted to ask for, what you wish for in all seriousness. because thinking about how to talk tournament makes alone does not help either. the whole idea of a union is to re-establish a good and public discussion first and foremost, after the whole team thing actually created quite a split and hurt map feedback a lot (imo). so to establish a discussion what maps are needed and to be produced and find a mode to highlight good maps is a step that is really needed before tournament organizers are approached. so let me ask you again: what do you wish for? take the last few motm maps and discuss how to "sell" them to TOs?
On October 24 2012 06:55 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote:and a general problem i have with your critique: empirical evidence is just impossible in this case. You might note I say this in my post immediately after: Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. Its impossibility is the point I'm trying to get across. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.
i have a problem with this because imo it does not need to be mentioned at all - and it does not make sense as long as you see the process of map critique (best map) as non valid, as long as you do not accept that subjectivity is ok and actually balances out quite a bit when you just ask wnough people to argument for or against a map.
On October 24 2012 06:55 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: Please write (yes, YOU, everybody!) what map should be in the map pool instead of map x and why. If you think such a map is not yet produced, than say what features this map should have.
in such a process, people would stand up for someone else's map and say "I support map X, it should be in the mappool instead of map y, because...". this would lead to a more elaborated critique and no more "i know what the mappool should be like-fuck blizzard attitude" . I mean, just to get a picture what people here think.
only thinking about a structure surely gets us nowhere. but saying all ideas are doomed, when peopl try to get somethig going doesn't help either. Wrong. You didn't seem to take anything away from the post you're responding to, or at best, excruciatingly cherry-picked quotes you wanted to respond to far out of their original context and intent.
why should i take something away? this is not a battle i am trying to win... this is a general idea that came to my mind and i think it would help big parts of the community to actually evaluate their "work" and make better maps long term. it has nothing to do with you personal, but with you (the readers).
Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: i do not see where this would differ from most believes. what we need is a bit more better maps to create more visibility and slowly initiate more(!) and regular map rotation with hopefully very similar map pools Just making good maps, posting them on a barely viewed sub-forum on a community site, and hoping they get noticed by businesses doesn't create more visibility. If it did, the mapmaking community wouldn't be thinking up ideas like unions to improve the situation. It's also not up to us to initiate more/consistent map rotation in tournaments. That's up to the tournaments. The best we can do is make a solid case why such a thing is beneficial to them; I talk about this in my last post. ... You did read the post in full, right? you made a solid case why it is beneficial? sure you did and i think what you said is common sense. not want to take anything away from you, but sure, wth... entertainment is better with more interesting games on a few newer maps because player will adept and playstyles will evolve. we had that a thousand times, didn't we?[/QUOTE]
i think a form of organization that extends the teams would be beneficial. and yes, we cannot change map rotation, but we can make better maps because right now there are just too few maps that are tournament ready
and to quote myself: i do not see where this would differ from most believes.
|
I don't think you can say that the current maps are bad, but I think you can explain why certain maps are better / more interesting then other maps, and I am sure there are better maps then these that are used in tournies / ladder now.
I still think we should rush into this, so we can get some sort of formality, even if the council does not consists of everyone's opinions, it can self proclaim that it does and therefore be able to maybe get new maps into tournies and the ladder.
If we do not rush into a council then the best thing we can do is to gather an enormous amount of maps from this forum and then throw away the bad / ones that are too old slowly until we are left with about 20 maps that are decent with today's metagame, then maybe put it on vote or something that will allow us to be left with 1 map (or maybe top 5). Sort of like MotM only for every map ever made in this forum. Then we all can start to publish these few maps together!
|
On October 24 2012 06:51 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote:On October 24 2012 05:55 MarcusRife wrote:On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans. To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant. Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up. I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish. To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be. Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation. I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work. Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months. In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working. Why do I argue with you, that is the real question. We don't actually disagree on anything substantial. But I must. >< I think map teams were primarily for making better maps in inception. Crux can't be compared because it's just a wrapper for the 2-3 guys that Mr. Chae tapped prior to even beginning GSL to make maps (following the BW model). This is somewhat like Diamond putting together the ESV map team. Promoting map rotation is a natural extension for the mapping community because we're passionate about maps, but it should never have fallen to us. I don't think any mapmakers should be blamed when literally every other segment of the SC2 scene could and should have been putting in as much or more effort. We need more people like Morrow, for example. That said, you're entirely right that a campaign of metered persuasion and raising popular and professional support would be better than anything yet attempted. I wouldn't say you're arguing with me by saying this.
Frankly, I agree that in an ideal world it shouldn't have fallen on the mapmaking community to put all the effort in trying to get tournaments to have solid map pools with a decent refresh rate. For the past while, however, nobody but mapmakers have been passionate about the map pools, hence why it seems to have fallen on our shoulders. As long as the games were good and people were entertained, what problem was there to see in their eyes?
With growing community sentiment now beginning to sway in our favour over the state of map pools due to stagnation in how games play out, growing worry about SC2's diminishing authority in the e-sports scene as games like League of Legends hit record breaking viewership numbers, and an overall concern about the long-term health of the competitive scene, there's a grand opportunity to make that job a whole lot easier -- as long as it's handled properly.
|
On October 24 2012 07:00 moskonia wrote: I don't think you can say that the current maps are bad, but I think you can explain why certain maps are better / more interesting then other maps, and I am sure there are better maps then these that are used in tournies / ladder now.
I still think we should rush into this, so we can get some sort of formality, even if the council does not consists of everyone's opinions, it can self proclaim that it does and therefore be able to maybe get new maps into tournies and the ladder.
If we do not rush into a council then the best thing we can do is to gather an enormous amount of maps from this forum and then throw away the bad / ones that are too old slowly until we are left with about 20 maps that are decent with today's metagame, then maybe put it on vote or something that will allow us to be left with 1 map (or maybe top 5). Sort of like MotM only for every map ever made in this forum. Then we all can start to publish these few maps together! I agree there's urgency. I think we don't have to jump quite so fast though, because it makes sense to me that our tide is the general atmosphere of the HotS release, which is a pretty big window that isn't about to disappear. I will explain this more when I sketch out a plan.
We don't want to get started down a path that could have been decided better, but also it'd be a shame to let this fizzle, so it should be pursued steadily and show progress (even if it's just ideas and discussion right now).
|
|
|
|