Hello guys, I don't know if you all read the official forums but Blizzard posted recently that they want to change the map pool frequently from now and on and will use community made maps, I don't know about everyone's else thought but for me that seems freaking awesome!
The message from the thread:
Greetings everyone,
As today is the start of a new ladder season for StarCraft II, we thought it would be good to speak a bit about our current perspective on map pool changes for upcoming ladder seasons.
First, we understand the desire to see map changes happen more often throughout the year for both 1v1 and group play. We are looking at ways we can add fresh maps to the ladder on a regular basis and want to work closer with community map makers to get them involved in these kinds of changes. As an example, we’ve partnered with sites like Team Liquid to facilitate previous map making contests in the past. We’re currently exploring similar opportunities to involve the community moving forward.
There are no map changes occurring in this season roll, but you can expect additions to the 1v1 map pool for the following season. We always appreciate your feedback and thank you for being avid supporters of StarCraft. Good luck out there in 2012 Season 5!
Feel free to share your thoughts and happiness on the subject, I do hope that it won't be something like using 1-2 maps and then going to back to no change for half a year, but from how they said it it seems like they want much more map changes, which is great!
And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
On November 02 2012 03:59 a176 wrote: And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
From what I've read in conversation, this TLMC that's supposedly coming up is intended for HotS. They've also announced intent to use some of the best WoL maps in the beta - that probably means Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, maybe Ohana as well. So in a word, yes. When they announce something and then fail to deliver on that, then I will doubt them, not before.
I put this in the other thread but will put it here too:
I am so sick of the terrible excuses from Blizzard, this is an easy problem to fix, just fix it. You don't have to wait until next season. Fix it mid season, people will be fine.
Why are the only partnering with sites like TL who don't actually make maps instead of mapmaking teams themselves? Why do teams like ESV, Crux, and TPW not have a formal submission process? TL is great for finding up and coming mappers, but why do the established ones have to go through the same stuff?
Why is this so hard for them, does no one at Blizzard play the game anymore?
I can't express how beyond frustrated I am with Blizzard and maps, I talk to them about it and all they tell me is "it's important to us but we can't promise anything." No goddamnit, promise you will fix it and fix it now. It's been two years, the time for chilling has passed.
On November 02 2012 03:59 a176 wrote: And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
I have been directly told at this time there is no plan to ship HotS retail with any community maps in the ladder pool, only Blizzard ones. They could be added later but being seasons are what 3-4 months now, I bet we will be waiting quite a bit.
On November 02 2012 03:59 a176 wrote: And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
From what I've read in conversation, this TLMC that's supposedly coming up is intended for HotS. They've also announced intent to use some of the best WoL maps in the beta - that probably means Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, maybe Ohana as well. So in a word, yes. When they announce something and then fail to deliver on that, then I will doubt them, not before.
Yet no maps are in the beta from WoL, instead they throw in a 2v2 map. Nice.
On November 02 2012 04:40 NewSunshine wrote: From what I've read in conversation, this TLMC that's supposedly coming up is intended for HotS. They've also announced intent to use some of the best WoL maps in the beta - that probably means Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, maybe Ohana as well. So in a word, yes. When they announce something and then fail to deliver on that, then I will doubt them, not before.
Is there another TLMC coming up? I havn't heard anything about that. Got a source?
On November 02 2012 04:54 Diamond wrote: I put this in the other thread but will put it here too:
I am so sick of the terrible excuses from Blizzard, this is an easy problem to fix, just fix it. You don't have to wait until next season. Fix it mid season, people will be fine.
Why are the only partnering with sites like TL who don't actually make maps instead of mapmaking teams themselves? Why do teams like ESV, Crux, and TPW not have a formal submission process? TL is great for finding up and coming mappers, but why do the established ones have to go through the same stuff?
Why is this so hard for them, does no one at Blizzard play the game anymore?
I can't express how beyond frustrated I am with Blizzard and maps, I talk to them about it and all they tell me is "it's important to us but we can't promise anything." No goddamnit, promise you will fix it and fix it now. It's been two years, the time for chilling has passed.
On November 02 2012 03:59 a176 wrote: And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
I have been directly told at this time there is no plan to ship HotS retail with any community maps in the ladder pool, only Blizzard ones. They could be added later but being seasons are what 3-4 months now, I bet we will be waiting quite a bit.
On November 02 2012 03:59 a176 wrote: And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
From what I've read in conversation, this TLMC that's supposedly coming up is intended for HotS. They've also announced intent to use some of the best WoL maps in the beta - that probably means Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, maybe Ohana as well. So in a word, yes. When they announce something and then fail to deliver on that, then I will doubt them, not before.
Yet no maps are in the beta from WoL, instead they throw in a 2v2 map. Nice.
Well generally mid-season ladder pool adjustment is for emergency only. Have only happened twice so far. Seasons are if i recall through only 2 months long.
Hmm i would like to keep pointing out that the guys who do make the maps at Blizzard are on their payroll so Blizzard can't really have them sit around doing nothing. They don't have any financial benefits from bringing in community maps but right now they do have a benefit from testing to the limit as to what would be balanceable in HOTS. Can they make maps that are more open. With more exposed expansions. Can it be done without screwing up X race.
This is not about balance it is about design. WOL is already close to 100% balanced but it got some design problems. That is what they are trying to fix and one of the ways they do this is with more open maps. Then they can try and make it balanced through unit adjustment later. That is why they got very little use of old WOL ladder maps right now.
As for WOL standing still, well this is Pre-expansion time in a nutshell. All the brainpower of the people in Blizzard that makes the decisions are being used on HOTS thus nothing is being decided for WOL. It is the same as in WOW. In the months before the expansion nothing happens. Better brace yourself if this beta will be as long as they claim it will be.
On November 02 2012 04:40 NewSunshine wrote: From what I've read in conversation, this TLMC that's supposedly coming up is intended for HotS. They've also announced intent to use some of the best WoL maps in the beta - that probably means Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, maybe Ohana as well. So in a word, yes. When they announce something and then fail to deliver on that, then I will doubt them, not before.
Is there another TLMC coming up? I havn't heard anything about that. Got a source?
Nothing official. It's most likely going to happen again, but it's still speculation at this point.
On November 02 2012 04:54 Diamond wrote: I put this in the other thread but will put it here too:
I am so sick of the terrible excuses from Blizzard, this is an easy problem to fix, just fix it. You don't have to wait until next season. Fix it mid season, people will be fine.
Why are the only partnering with sites like TL who don't actually make maps instead of mapmaking teams themselves? Why do teams like ESV, Crux, and TPW not have a formal submission process? TL is great for finding up and coming mappers, but why do the established ones have to go through the same stuff?
Why set up the system to create unnecessary struggles and imbalanced (whoa, did I just say that?) submissions processes. -- The proper answer would be to create a submission process that is uniform for every person. This is not the problem. The problem is reviewing maps for the purposes of testing and placing onto the ladder (this requires personel which requires money and a successful business is about managing costs -- yes, yes, I know Activision Blizzard sleeps in beds filled with Franklins -- not the point). A secondary issue that follows is management of the possible quantity of maps that could be submitted. This alone could increase the cost of such a submission process dramatically. Hence, from a numbers perspective, why take the risk and pay someone (or persons) to review when you can hold contests through major partnership sites that already generate advertising and revenue for your product?
On November 02 2012 04:54 Diamond wrote: Why is this so hard for them, does no one at Blizzard play the game anymore?
Of course not! They play COD!
On November 02 2012 04:54 Diamond wrote: I can't express how beyond frustrated I am with Blizzard and maps, I talk to them about it and all they tell me is "it's important to us but we can't promise anything." No goddamnit, promise you will fix it and fix it now. It's been two years, the time for chilling has passed.
Agreed -- but until they start to suffer in their pockets the C-suits will not care.
On November 02 2012 03:59 a176 wrote: And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
I have been directly told at this time there is no plan to ship HotS retail with any community maps in the ladder pool, only Blizzard ones. They could be added later but being seasons are what 3-4 months now, I bet we will be waiting quite a bit.
This particular point -- Blizzard is doing the work to produce HotS. Give them their fair shot during the very beginning to show their skills. Besides, not like we won't need that time to produce maps specifically for HotS. Not everyone gets the Beta you know.
On November 02 2012 03:59 a176 wrote: And also, as posted from the 'map council' thread. With HotS coming soon, do you really think they will allow community maps for HotS right off the bat? Let alone a couple seasons on?
From what I've read in conversation, this TLMC that's supposedly coming up is intended for HotS. They've also announced intent to use some of the best WoL maps in the beta - that probably means Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, maybe Ohana as well. So in a word, yes. When they announce something and then fail to deliver on that, then I will doubt them, not before.
Yet no maps are in the beta from WoL, instead they throw in a 2v2 map. Nice.
Beta's still going on bro. The sky is not falling... yet.
On November 02 2012 04:40 NewSunshine wrote: From what I've read in conversation, this TLMC that's supposedly coming up is intended for HotS. They've also announced intent to use some of the best WoL maps in the beta - that probably means Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, maybe Ohana as well. So in a word, yes. When they announce something and then fail to deliver on that, then I will doubt them, not before.
Is there another TLMC coming up? I havn't heard anything about that. Got a source?
Nothing official. It's most likely going to happen again, but it's still speculation at this point.
I see. Would be nice to see it again through i could name alot of things that would need to be fixed for the format. But we will see.
On November 02 2012 05:22 SigmaFiE wrote: This particular point -- Blizzard is doing the work to produce HotS. Give them their fair shot during the very beginning to show their skills. Besides, not like we won't need that time to produce maps specifically for HotS. Not everyone gets the Beta you know.
We sort of gave them about 3 years now. How much longer do you want?
Also your point about the map team having to do something, they do. The Blizz map team makes 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, UMS, and Campaign maps (should be pretty easy to figure out where the majority of the time is spent). That's the problem, they don't have a dedicated team for 1v1.
Akilion wastes Cloud Kingdom Daybreak Howling peak Newkirk city Antiga Shipyard Korhal City Star station
Vetoes are in too.
All of them are their LE needless to say... but! Grand new Unbuildable plates/rocks/rubble cover the places where neutral depots usually is placed on tournement maps. No kidding they are here.3 pylon block seems dead. Now these plates doesn't seem anywhere as durable as a neutral supply depot so i wouldn't rule out a block happening following a proxy 2 rax. But that i don't mind that really.
Alright what is Newkirk city you ask? Well it is Blizzards promised replacement for Fractured glacier. Yes even Blizzard could see that Fractured glacier wasn't going to be competative so they replaced it.
Seems to be the legacy of Shakuras plateau from where i see it. I don't mind as i guess being a map that was in the pool for almost the entire WOL ladder(For better or worse) its design deserve some praise. This also shows its true colours as the design really always catered more to terrans than protoss.
It seems to have two bases with both rocks blocking it aswell as collabsable rocks that can block the entrance... Browder was here.
Now all that is left is awaiting all the "2/3 years late comments" that will surely follow even through all Blizzard have done is listened when they don't have to.
On November 02 2012 05:22 SigmaFiE wrote: This particular point -- Blizzard is doing the work to produce HotS. Give them their fair shot during the very beginning to show their skills. Besides, not like we won't need that time to produce maps specifically for HotS. Not everyone gets the Beta you know.
We sort of gave them about 3 years now. How much longer do you want?
Also your point about the map team having to do something, they do. The Blizz map team makes 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, UMS, and Campaign maps (should be pretty easy to figure out where the majority of the time is spent). That's the problem, they don't have a dedicated team for 1v1.
We gave them 3 years on a poorly executed (I won't say poorly designed because I don't know enough about game design to make such a statement) game. HotS thus far is looking to correct the errors of the past in many major ways (I am speaking about the game environment -- not necessarily the game play). Enough has changed that it warrants the allowance of the developer to make their bed with the expansion. What they are doing does not and will not change the common practices of tournament organizers nor of the players themselves anytime soon. What is changing, and rapidly, is the tools available to tournament organizers and the players to locate what we consider to be far better maps thanks to certain members of this community.
I think that it is the changes in the game environment along with the implementation of tools that the community has worked hard to provide that will create the necessary situation for SC II to remain viable for years... not the ladder (practice) maps. Ladder maps had hardly any impact on the longevity of Brood War -- rather it was tournaments and customs with a heavy emphasis on community that made it so successful. While it would be really nice to see our own maps in the ladder pool -- I can live without it if Blizzard works hard (which it looks like they have) to re-emphasize the sense of community in the game. If there is a sense of community -- the customs players will follow and they will play the custom maps (especially if they see them in tournaments and other streams -- hence why the environment needed the change).
This does not preclude the fac that the maps in the beta right now suck... they do. But it's still Beta so I'm going to reserve judgement until Blizzard does a full release. My theory here is to just simply be prepared.
That Newkirk map.. ugh. I like maps that encourage airplay (I myself have 3 or 4 maps that could be classified as this) but this map is basically shoving it down our throats. 2 close-together chokes in the middle (both guarded by XNTs) and that's the only way to get to the opponent. Not to mention 7 bases on each side, most of them close together and easy to defend.
They really, really want to see the huge late-game fights w/ Battlecruisers and such I guess. Which is great ---if--- they naturally develop to that state after a back-and-forth game. But not so fun if they got that way from 20+ min of turtling.
That Newkirk map.. ugh. I like maps that encourage airplay (I myself have 3 or 4 maps that could be classified as this) but this map is basically shoving it down our throats. 2 close-together chokes in the middle (both guarded by XNTs) and that's the only way to get to the opponent. Not to mention 7 bases on each side, most of them close together and easy to defend.
They really, really want to see the huge late-game fights w/ Battlecruisers and such I guess. Which is great ---if--- they naturally develop to that state after a back-and-forth game. But not so fun if they got that way from 20+ min of turtling.
Damn Blizzard is going off the wagon, its like their only plan for hots is to double down on silly gimmicks that didn't work right the first time around. I know its like the cool thing these days to hate on blizz but I am really unexcited for this expansion. The lack of change in the team map pools have completely stifled casual play, and the glacial pace of change in the 1v1 pool is causing stagnation at the highest levels. I'm all for balance but I think they are just afraid to shake things up now that they are at the magic 5% statistical balance numbers in all matchups. The worst part is that its not laze, but willful ignorance that is causing it. All they have to do is open up channels for community maps to get playtime and the problems could work themselves out. I'm happy they are at least trying new things but until I see action from blizz, words are wind.
If what is explained by Cloaken's comment means that a semi-automated process for testing and approving new maps for every season is put into place, then I can wait that long, but I really hope this is what it is. The entire way the map pool has been managed in WoL isn't really optimal long term - this idea of arbitrarily saying "okay GSL map time, let's do a poll of every single GSL map ever used, past or present!" or "Let's do a contest on TeamLiquid and see what maps happen". Both of those things were inherently GOOD imo, but only because Blizzard has not managed to create a semi-automated way to approve competitive maps in the ladder pool, as we can see because since then, there have been no changes other than adding Condemned Ridge, which by all means though we don't have the ladder stat numbers, appears to be a greatly Zerg favored map.
Ideally (this is more IMO and maybe map makers and players would disagree), two maps ought to be changed out every season until the map pool is considered 'fresh', and then perhaps one map should be switched out every season. At that point you could even begin to switch 'older' (meaning maybe one that was removed for one season) maps back INTO the pool - because even though it's been mentioned by Blizzard that they could do this with maps like Metalopolis and Metropolis it's never been viable/ideal because by the time a map has ever been taken out of the ladder pool, it's been completely figured out and considered stale/unbalanced in the competitive scene (though I remember they did take and and re-add Metalopolis once with fixed positions).
Having zero changes for any season, let alone three, is a huge disappointment both to players and viewers (in the case of WCS). There are many complaints of the game being "stale" by both viewers and players - but the state of the map pool in many tournaments and in the Blizzard ladder is just as responsible, if not MORE so, than game design/balance, in my opinion.
ALSO, I truly believe that with the number of workers being added to CC/Hatchery/Nexus, that it is time for Blizzard to allow mapmakers to use non-standard expansions in maps. It should no longer be confusing to low level players because the CC and gas tells you exactly how many workers can be placed for saturation. The increased depth of maps would more than make up for the ability to see how many workers are on each Nexus/CC/Hatch without counting (which like many, I believe is a negligible effect in many games). Maps where there used to be rocks (Condemned Ridge, Tal'Darim altar) could be properly balanced with smaller expansions, and in the case of maps like Daybreak and Antiga (where as NASL realized, the golds SHOULD be smaller expansions), add to strategic depth by players making choices where to expand based on risk versus profitability.
One concern I have w/ the prospect of Blizzard having some sort of community-based decision on what maps might be on the ladder (it sounds like this might be a possibility, although we don't know much) is - whatever map looks the prettiest from the overview picture will get the most votes, regardless of gameplay innovation or balance.
But that is conjecture and certainly a good problem to have, vs. the current stale state of things.
ALSO, I truly believe that with the number of workers being added to CC/Hatchery/Nexus, that it is time for Blizzard to allow mapmakers to use non-standard expansions in maps.
That's a decent point, although I think with them letting community maps have a chance - more unconventional maps creeping into the map pool would happen regardless of not having to count workers.
On November 02 2012 12:21 Fatam wrote: One concern I have w/ the prospect of Blizzard having some sort of community-based decision on what maps might be on the ladder (it sounds like this might be a possibility, although we don't know much) is - whatever map looks the prettiest from the overview picture will get the most votes, regardless of gameplay innovation or balance.
That was exactly what happened when metropolis got voted into ladder. Even now after all the lag problems and imbalance it is still a map people say they want back in. Serriously it rivals steppes of war and lost temple in imbalance.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
Exactly, the 'community' is an assemblage of 90% people who know less about mapmaking than Blizzard does. We would probably end up with even worse map pools. That being said, the other 5-10% of the community will do far better a job than Blizzard.
The problem with how to get a good representative group of people to create map pools in name of the community for Blizzard remains, though I think Barrin should be the president of that group
I mean with the constantly high demand for new maps on the Ladder Blizz DOES need a new system for sorting through and implementing the good community maps out there.
Not every community map should be on the ladder though and that's just the truth of it. Whirlwind would make a horrible ladder map as an example. Blizzard needs a new system that will make their overall process of choosing and editing maps more efficient.
That said, Tal'Darim Altar and Shakuras Plateau REALLY need to leave the map pool.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
That problem is easily solved when you only give them carefully selected maps to vote on. The only remaining problem would be that we could end up with ~10 beach maps eventually.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
That problem is easily solved when you only give them carefully selected maps to vote on. The only remaining problem would be that we could end up with ~10 beach maps eventually.
If you have a team able to carefully pick some good maps why not let them do the entire map choosing rather than putting in a vote among people who got no idea...
I don't believe the community is bad at picking maps, if you look at the TLMC community votes you get 1st Ohana 2nd Cloud Kingdom and Khoral Compound was 7th which was proven to be broken and Burning Altar 6th. What jugdes picked : Khoral Compound 1st, Burning Altar 3rd. Ohana only came 5th. Also judges selected Haven's Lagoon because "it was fun playing on it". After 1 year of insight it looks like the community had a clue to me.
I hope this time the organizers put effort into picking decent judges too, this means what people suggested at the time of the 1st TLMC : judges representing shoutcasters, tournament organisers, pro players and mappers. Please don't pick random forum moderators this was a bad idea. I hope this time we don't end up with broken maps like Haven's Lagoon or Korhal Compound.
And I hope HOTS incitates judges to pick new concepts, and not picking standard maps that already won previous motm just as a way to get promotion. 2,5 years of picking standard maps at motm didn't help winning maps at all so it's time to try what some mappers have kept saying all these years. Pick new concepts.
On November 02 2012 03:57 a176 wrote: They had no issue removing korhal after a brief period of time, yet taldarim is still in after 2 years.
Might have something to do with the fact that TDA is used in tournaments after 2 years and Korhal Compound was never picked up. (even though I loved the map), but it was perceived to have certain issues like a too far away third which could be hit by tanks from a high ground. The stuff I like, but it's not for everyone I gather.
On November 02 2012 04:54 Diamond wrote: Yet no maps are in the beta from WoL, instead they throw in a 2v2 map. Nice.
Surely you understand that the purpose of the beta is to test if say the mothership core can make PvP work with a 2 width ramp or if the new units can make an inbase expo like that work? It's a beta, it's not meant for people to have fun or epic games, it's for Blizzard to test out how the new units play out in certain conditions and therefore try out radical new map designs to see if they can be balanced with the new units.
Anyway, my concerns echo those I outed in the mapmaking union thread:
- Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.
- Diamond needs to stop vilifying the people he needs and stop calling them idiots, they have monetary concerns and are actual business people who try to run a profitable business on a level he, quite honestly, does not understand the complexity of, it isn't as simple as he thinks
- The community is by no means unified over what it considers good and bad maps. What people fail to realize when they say 'The map pool sucks, we want new maps!' is that everyone wants different maps out and different maps in. No matter which maps are going to be put in, people are going to be unsatisfied, people are also going to be pissed at their favourite maps removed.
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
Surely there must be some kind of compromise. Perhaps the community could vote for their fav maps and out of the top 30 every season, Blizzard can pick and choose 2 to rotate in. And similar process for which maps go. Having a dynamic map pool is a huge factor in keeping the game fresh, and getting the community involved may really work wonders.
On November 02 2012 03:57 a176 wrote: They had no issue removing korhal after a brief period of time, yet taldarim is still in after 2 years.
Might have something to do with the fact that TDA is used in tournaments after 2 years and Korhal Compound was never picked up. (even though I loved the map), but it was perceived to have certain issues like a too far away third which could be hit by tanks from a high ground. The stuff I like, but it's not for everyone I gather.
On November 02 2012 04:54 Diamond wrote: Yet no maps are in the beta from WoL, instead they throw in a 2v2 map. Nice.
Surely you understand that the purpose of the beta is to test if say the mothership core can make PvP work with a 2 width ramp or if the new units can make an inbase expo like that work? It's a beta, it's not meant for people to have fun or epic games, it's for Blizzard to test out how the new units play out in certain conditions and therefore try out radical new map designs to see if they can be balanced with the new units.
Anyway, my concerns echo those I outed in the mapmaking union thread:
- Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.
- Diamond needs to stop vilifying the people he needs and stop calling them idiots, they have monetary concerns and are actual business people who try to run a profitable business on a level he, quite honestly, does not understand the complexity of, it isn't as simple as he thinks
- The community is by no means unified over what it considers good and bad maps. What people fail to realize when they say 'The map pool sucks, we want new maps!' is that everyone wants different maps out and different maps in. No matter which maps are going to be put in, people are going to be unsatisfied, people are also going to be pissed at their favourite maps removed.
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
Agree with all of those points.
Community bias against Blizzard maps is something i see alot. This is especially true for the new HOTS maps. It is like they activly look for the one thing to criticise on the map. Take Korhal city. All i hear is "Oh it is a 2v2 map" when it clearly isn't. Sure its initial main and natural looks like that but from there you get a completely holdable third that still take some effort to hold. Even through it is rotational symetric there doesn't seem to be a larger positional imbalance. The collabseable rocks at third allows you to harras the third prior to your opponent actually making it. All of it is innovative use of new mechanics.
If all it took to mark a map as bad was an empty argument then i could shoot down every single map in the current pool including the community ones. I really think we should wait and see.
On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: - The community is by no means unified over what it considers good and bad maps. What people fail to realize when they say 'The map pool sucks, we want new maps!' is that everyone wants different maps out and different maps in. No matter which maps are going to be put in, people are going to be unsatisfied, people are also going to be pissed at their favourite maps removed.
Oh, I don't think a lot of people would disagree on removing TDA, Antiga or Shakuras. Also how is the community not being unified over maps a problem ? Nations are not unified over who makes the best leader, that's why we have those things called elections I believe, never heard about those ? You're the only one disagreeing here, and you don't even make serious/playable maps.
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
Oh and nice strawman there.
Community bias against Blizzard maps is something i see alot. This is especially true for the new HOTS maps. It is like they activly look for the one thing to criticise on the map. Take Korhal city. All i hear is "Oh it is a 2v2 map" when it clearly isn't. Sure its initial main and natural looks like that but from there you get a completely holdable third that still take some effort to hold. Even through it is rotational symetric there doesn't seem to be a larger positional imbalance. The collabseable rocks at third allows you to harras the third prior to your opponent actually making it. All of it is innovative use of new mechanics.
Actively ? Well, I don't have to search very deep to see that remaking Terminus with an inbase natural and unwallable ramps isn't a good idea.
btw, does noone else think that this new map might be the best hots map so far, if not one of the best blizzard maps ever? :D
Its layout is very simmilar to Shakuras plateu. But this one is not 3 years old so i guess that is what make it the best one ever.
They look similar, but in game they're noticeably different. One of the main things about Shakuras was the gigantic open space between the natural and 3rd, this map doesn't have this. Also, the extra expansion(the one with 2 rocks) does 2 things: 1) changes the expansion possibilities, with one more direction to expand in after taking the forward 3rd. 2) it allows for a new tactic where you take the expansion and then seal off the only entrance, encouraging air attacks. I know, harassment and drops were all very popular on Shakuras, but for a different reason, the proportions and setup of the maps are just different, and that extra expansion changes things as well. Overall, it's a solid map, with a couple of changes that make the gameplay vary in some interesting places. But it's hard to see these things from just an overview.
I've played a couple games on it now and as a Protoss I like the map. but that's probably that because my Tempest can attack the opponents base like really fast. So fast it's not even funny. Though if the terran or zerg survive the early air harrasment the map has a nice flow to it. So far I like it.
On November 02 2012 03:57 a176 wrote: TLMC was just about 1 year ago.
There has been numerous GSL map additions in that time.
They had no issue removing korhal after a brief period of time, yet taldarim is still in after 2 years.
I have no faith left in blizzard to do anything that concerns the community.
They don't do all things you want and this makes you to have "no" faith left.
Good.
Because faith isn't required. They showed that they care, but they cannot do all things at once. SC2 isn't a small school project where someone can incorporate feedback without going through a lot of instances to keep the project consistent.
On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: - The community is by no means unified over what it considers good and bad maps. What people fail to realize when they say 'The map pool sucks, we want new maps!' is that everyone wants different maps out and different maps in. No matter which maps are going to be put in, people are going to be unsatisfied, people are also going to be pissed at their favourite maps removed.
Oh, I don't think a lot of people would disagree on removing TDA, Antiga or Shakuras
Yeah, so you clearly never witnessed a discussion about this on reddit where a lot of people voice very different opinions on all these maps. I'm personally not a fan of TDA or Shakuras but I'm madly in love with Antiga Shipyard when it's cross only.
Also how is the community not being unified over maps a problem ? Nations are not unified over who makes the best leader, that's why we have those things called elections I believe, never heard about those ? You're the only one disagreeing here, and you don't even make serious/playable maps.
Because the fact that every four years roughly 49% of the US is very dissatisfied with the election results is a problem?
Anyway, as you can see in this thread, the opinions on Newkirk and Korhal City or whatever it's called are already quite divided.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
This is the truth.
On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: [...] - Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.
[...]
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
This is bullshit. First of all I can safely say that the good mapmakers DO know better, even without "statistical proof". And I don't get that part about Antiga, never heard that. It's just a bad designed map.
Secondly Blizzard maps are just bullshit, if anyone in the mapmaking community would make such maps he would be criticized for it Also don't get the Cherno comparison. Cherno has vastly different limitations cos it's a 4p mirrored with all spwans enabled to begin with...
On November 02 2012 20:49 chuky500 wrote: I hope this time the organizers put effort into picking decent judges too, this means what people suggested at the time of the 1st TLMC : judges representing shoutcasters, tournament organisers, pro players and mappers. Please don't pick random forum moderators this was a bad idea. I hope this time we don't end up with broken maps like Haven's Lagoon or Korhal Compound.
I somewhat agree with this part of your post.
I don't rly trust shoutcasters other than.. well Apollo and Artosis to have a meaningful opinion when analyzing a lot of maps. But there is certainly some pro players (Morrow!!, TLO!!) who would could be really helpful for a certain purpose. And yes while I think the guys who judged/playtested last time probably had a long history in Starcraft and have certain qualifications to judge maps, the complete lack of any good and active mapmaker in the juging panel is somewhat idiotic tbh. (I realize it's because all good mapmakers submitted but there have to be ways around that)
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: [...] - Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.
[...]
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
This is bullshit. First of all I can safely say that the good mapmakers DO know better, even without "statistical proof".
Okay, that's your claim, you can't safely say that, you can say that and then it's your word. Nothing more.
And I don't get that part about Antiga, never heard that. It's just a bad designed map.
Please, a lot of people claimed that it was TvZ imbalanced or TvP imbalanced. It has a minor TvP imbalance of like 3%, nothing substantial, it is by no stretch TvZ imbalanced.
Apart from that, it's your opinion that it's a badly designed map. This is the entire underlying point, that some people act like their opinions are facts. There's a reason GOMTV removed Ohana and kept Antiga and my hunch is that this is viewer numbers. Antiga has a certain inclination to generate 'memorable games' that people look vods up because the design lends itself to tense situations where both are highly mined out and have troubles securing a third, Ohana tends to create boring games that aren't memorable.
I will play a game in any matchup and watch it in any matchup any day of the week on Antiga before on Ohana, that's my opinion, this is subjective, these aren't facts that can be right or wrong, what are facts are balanced numbers and viewer numbers.
Secondly Blizzard maps are just bullshit, if anyone in the mapmaking community would make such maps he would be criticized for it
I disagree, it's a yes-no game at this point, neither side can prove their point.
Also don't get the Cherno comparison. Cherno has vastly different limitations cos it's a 4p mirrored with all spwans enabled to begin with...
On November 03 2012 03:27 crbox wrote: I wish they fucking add neutral supply depots
I wish terran could 15 CC free without worries. They should add a neutral depot for the zergs at the ramp, and add a controllable depot wall already in place for terrans. Also toss players should start with cannons at the expo. Now all the races can expand on 15 without worry, not just Zerg.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
This is the truth.
On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: [...] - Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.
[...]
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
This is bullshit. First of all I can safely say that the good mapmakers DO know better, even without "statistical proof".
Okay, that's your claim, you can't safely say that, you can say that and then it's your word. Nothing more.
And I don't get that part about Antiga, never heard that. It's just a bad designed map.
Please, a lot of people claimed that it was TvZ imbalanced or TvP imbalanced. It has a minor TvP imbalance of like 3%, nothing substantial, it is by no stretch TvZ imbalanced.
Apart from that, it's your opinion that it's a badly designed map. This is the entire underlying point, that some people act like their opinions are facts. There's a reason GOMTV removed Ohana and kept Antiga and my hunch is that this is viewer numbers. Antiga has a certain inclination to generate 'memorable games' that people look vods up because the design lends itself to tense situations where both are highly mined out and have troubles securing a third, Ohana tends to create boring games that aren't memorable.
I will play a game in any matchup and watch it in any matchup any day of the week on Antiga before on Ohana, that's my opinion, this is subjective, these aren't facts that can be right or wrong, what are facts are balanced numbers and viewer numbers.
Also don't get the Cherno comparison. Cherno has vastly different limitations cos it's a 4p mirrored with all spwans enabled to begin with...
It has the same airplay problems in some spawns.
Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because it is a 4p map yet has to be made in to a 2p map to 'fix' it. Regardless of the hard 4th, regardless of the near-impossible 5th, the fact that certain spawns had to be disabled retrospectively because of imbalances is poor design, and is something that a seasoned map maker would have spotted straight away.
You seem to be quite hung up on this idea of statistics 'proving' how good a map is. The problem with statistics is that they don't tell you the whole story, in fact they don't tell you all that much at all without them being more focussed than just winrates. Winrates don't take in to account how good the players are, what strategies were used, how easy expanding was, game conditions (live/online/latency/hardware etc.) I could go on. A map might be perfectly balanced statistically until a player works out a certain tactic that is incredibly strong on it. On the whole, Blizzard maps are pretty garbage, experienced map makers and high level players all agree on this, and could list many reasons why it's true. The reason they don't is probably because they don't want to waste their time trying to convince people on an internet forum.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
This is the truth.
On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: [...] - Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.
[...]
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
This is bullshit. First of all I can safely say that the good mapmakers DO know better, even without "statistical proof".
Okay, that's your claim, you can't safely say that, you can say that and then it's your word. Nothing more.
And I don't get that part about Antiga, never heard that. It's just a bad designed map.
Please, a lot of people claimed that it was TvZ imbalanced or TvP imbalanced. It has a minor TvP imbalance of like 3%, nothing substantial, it is by no stretch TvZ imbalanced.
Apart from that, it's your opinion that it's a badly designed map. This is the entire underlying point, that some people act like their opinions are facts. There's a reason GOMTV removed Ohana and kept Antiga and my hunch is that this is viewer numbers. Antiga has a certain inclination to generate 'memorable games' that people look vods up because the design lends itself to tense situations where both are highly mined out and have troubles securing a third, Ohana tends to create boring games that aren't memorable.
I will play a game in any matchup and watch it in any matchup any day of the week on Antiga before on Ohana, that's my opinion, this is subjective, these aren't facts that can be right or wrong, what are facts are balanced numbers and viewer numbers.
Secondly Blizzard maps are just bullshit, if anyone in the mapmaking community would make such maps he would be criticized for it
I disagree, it's a yes-no game at this point, neither side can prove their point.
Also don't get the Cherno comparison. Cherno has vastly different limitations cos it's a 4p mirrored with all spwans enabled to begin with...
It has the same airplay problems in some spawns.
Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because it is a 4p map yet has to be made in to a 2p map to 'fix' it. Regardless of the hard 4th, regardless of the near-impossible 5th, the fact that certain spawns had to be disabled retrospectively because of imbalances is poor design, and is something that I seasoned map maker would have spotted straight away.
You seem to be quite hung up on this idea of statistics 'proving' how good a map is. The problem with statistics is that they don't tell you the whole story, in fact they don't tell you all that much at all without them being more focussed than just winrates. Winrates don't take in to account how good the players are, what strategies were used, how easy expanding was, game conditions (live/online/latency/hardware etc.) I could go on. A map might be perfectly balanced statistically until a player works out a certain tactic that is incredibly strong on it. On the whole, Blizzard maps are pretty garbage, experienced map makers and high level players all agree on this, and could list many reasons why it's true. The reason they don't is probably because they don't want to waste their time trying to convince people on an internet forum.
ive been arguing and will continue to say blizzard maps are NOT just shit.
On November 02 2012 18:49 archonOOid wrote: Why can't we, the community, vote in and out 1-2 maps per season? Then the mapmakers could compete for slots each season.
Because, bluntly, the community has no idea what makes a good map. See metropolis for why this didn't work out.
This is the truth.
On November 02 2012 20:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: [...] - Some mapmaking teams style themselves authoritative in judging what a good map is, but they have no proof (numbers) to back this notion up. They also some-what embarrass themselves by repeatedly claiming that Antiga is TvZ imbalanced for instance while stats show it is not, doesn't make the impression you know what you're talking about.
[...]
- The community is angry and biased towards 'Blizzard maps' and had Newkirk City come from ESV people would've probably praised its 'interesting new layout'. I mean, let's be honest here, the flaws that exist on it also exist on Cherno and then some.
This is bullshit. First of all I can safely say that the good mapmakers DO know better, even without "statistical proof".
Okay, that's your claim, you can't safely say that, you can say that and then it's your word. Nothing more.
And I don't get that part about Antiga, never heard that. It's just a bad designed map.
Please, a lot of people claimed that it was TvZ imbalanced or TvP imbalanced. It has a minor TvP imbalance of like 3%, nothing substantial, it is by no stretch TvZ imbalanced.
Apart from that, it's your opinion that it's a badly designed map. This is the entire underlying point, that some people act like their opinions are facts. There's a reason GOMTV removed Ohana and kept Antiga and my hunch is that this is viewer numbers. Antiga has a certain inclination to generate 'memorable games' that people look vods up because the design lends itself to tense situations where both are highly mined out and have troubles securing a third, Ohana tends to create boring games that aren't memorable.
I will play a game in any matchup and watch it in any matchup any day of the week on Antiga before on Ohana, that's my opinion, this is subjective, these aren't facts that can be right or wrong, what are facts are balanced numbers and viewer numbers.
Secondly Blizzard maps are just bullshit, if anyone in the mapmaking community would make such maps he would be criticized for it
I disagree, it's a yes-no game at this point, neither side can prove their point.
Also don't get the Cherno comparison. Cherno has vastly different limitations cos it's a 4p mirrored with all spwans enabled to begin with...
It has the same airplay problems in some spawns.
Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because it is a 4p map yet has to be made in to a 2p map to 'fix' it.
Your definition of 'objective' is objectively wrong. I don't think you know what it means. I have no problem with forcing cross on any map. What I think is that any non 2player map has a certain issue in that there are 'unused mains' and therefore they need to be balanced for both being mains aswell as being expansions. Which I personally don't like, this is a flaw in antiga shipyard in my opinion yes. But other factors balance it out to make it in my opinion a very enjoyable map to play on and watch games on.
Regardless of the hard 4th, regardless of the near-impossible 5th, the fact that certain spawns had to be disabled retrospectively because of imbalances is poor design, and is something that I seasoned map maker would have spotted straight away.
Why? Why is that wrong? I'm talking about Antiga with cross only here? Why is this 'objectively' bad? Explain that to me. I have no problems whatsoever with it. In fact, I much prefer it to a map where it's not forced cross because I don't like rationally symmetrical maps or maps with more than 2 spawns in general. I rather have a map where non cross spawns are so awful that it has to be cross-only and is made cross only than a map where non cross spawns are passable thereby forcing me to play on a non cross only map. I just dislike playing on a rotational map passionately. This is of course my personal opinion, though there is indeed a objective lackng of symmetry if it's not cross. If that is good or bad or indifferent is again subjective.
You seem to be quite hung up on this idea of statistics 'proving' how good a map is.
Nope, statistics prove imbalance, if that is good or bad is subjective, not objective.
The problem with statistics is that they don't tell you the whole story, in fact they don't tell you all that much at all without them being more focussed than just winrates. Winrates don't take in to account how good the players are, what strategies were used, how easy expanding was,
They don't, but everything except winrates is subjective, I'm sure there are people out there who like Steps of War exaclty for the reasons that most people dislike it, some people like rush maps. Blood Bath has its cult following you know.
On the whole, Blizzard maps are pretty garbage, experienced map makers and high level players all agree on this
Yeah, except that Rain has said he's a big fan of Nazarim Crypt. MKP listed Metalopolis as his favoured map, Stephano absolutely loves Antiga Shipyard, JackyPrime said condemned ridge is really cool and what not. Don't project your own opinion on the entire scene please.
and could list many reasons why it's true. The reason they don't is probably because they don't want to waste their time trying to convince people on an internet forum.
Yeah, or the reason is that they are pretty bad at convincing people they need to convince in general, as outlined in the mapmaking union thread. The people who believe that are also pretty bad at convincing tournament organizers.
There was a post about units or something on the battle.net website, and 9/10 of people who contributed said simply "new maps?" or "maps?" Like pages and pages of this.
And then the new ladder starts and it is the same old stagnant bunch. Similar to how in times past people were complaining of short rush distances and monotonous play, the current maps offer very long rush distances and monotonous play, only it takes 5-10 minutes longer to see any action. The map pool as it stands has turned the game into a snooze fest of Fast expand vs Fast expand, sometimes a quick third. This has killed spectating for me, as every game looks the same And is not action packed as they used to be.
The best solution I think would be to add some maps that have different spawning positions that entail different gameplay, as well as harder to hold naturals without a ramp and choke. Think Metalopolis or Shattered Temple. Close spawns had a tough time holding natural expansions, not to mention it was Very Difficult to secure a third. But cross spawns it could turn into 5base vs 5base split map. Thats cool to see, variances in gameplay and situational decisions that players have to make based upon the circumstances.
So yeah I understand that they are busy with HOTS, so why not rotate back in some old maps? Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, Shattered Temple, etc. And make the map pool bigger and add more vetoes. People, myself included, are really getting bored of the same 8 maps for months and months. It's boring and killing the game. Especially considering how similar all of the current maps are: long rush, easy to take natural, third, and usually fourth bases, and just generally little variance in gameplay or pace of the games.
On November 03 2012 05:37 tree139 wrote: There was a post about units or something on the battle.net website, and 9/10 of people who contributed said simply "new maps?" or "maps?" Like pages and pages of this.
And then the new ladder starts and it is the same old stagnant bunch. Similar to how in times past people were complaining of short rush distances and monotonous play, the current maps offer very long rush distances and monotonous play, only it takes 5-10 minutes longer to see any action. The map pool as it stands has turned the game into a snooze fest of Fast expand vs Fast expand, sometimes a quick third. This has killed spectating for me, as every game looks the same And is not action packed as they used to be.
The best solution I think would be to add some maps that have different spawning positions that entail different gameplay, as well as harder to hold naturals without a ramp and choke. Think Metalopolis or Shattered Temple. Close spawns had a tough time holding natural expansions, not to mention it was Very Difficult to secure a third. But cross spawns it could turn into 5base vs 5base split map. Thats cool to see, variances in gameplay and situational decisions that players have to make based upon the circumstances.
So yeah I understand that they are busy with HOTS, so why not rotate back in some old maps? Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, Shattered Temple, etc. And make the map pool bigger and add more vetoes. People, myself included, are really getting bored of the same 8 maps for months and months. It's boring and killing the game. Especially considering how similar all of the current maps are: long rush, easy to take natural, third, and usually fourth bases, and just generally little variance in gameplay or pace of the games.
exactly man thats why ive tried pushing blizzard to put this in the ladder smallmap its pretty balanced so far (30+games)
On November 03 2012 05:37 tree139 wrote: There was a post about units or something on the battle.net website, and 9/10 of people who contributed said simply "new maps?" or "maps?" Like pages and pages of this.
And then the new ladder starts and it is the same old stagnant bunch. Similar to how in times past people were complaining of short rush distances and monotonous play, the current maps offer very long rush distances and monotonous play, only it takes 5-10 minutes longer to see any action. The map pool as it stands has turned the game into a snooze fest of Fast expand vs Fast expand, sometimes a quick third. This has killed spectating for me, as every game looks the same And is not action packed as they used to be.
The best solution I think would be to add some maps that have different spawning positions that entail different gameplay, as well as harder to hold naturals without a ramp and choke. Think Metalopolis or Shattered Temple. Close spawns had a tough time holding natural expansions, not to mention it was Very Difficult to secure a third. But cross spawns it could turn into 5base vs 5base split map. Thats cool to see, variances in gameplay and situational decisions that players have to make based upon the circumstances.
So yeah I understand that they are busy with HOTS, so why not rotate back in some old maps? Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, Shattered Temple, etc. And make the map pool bigger and add more vetoes. People, myself included, are really getting bored of the same 8 maps for months and months. It's boring and killing the game. Especially considering how similar all of the current maps are: long rush, easy to take natural, third, and usually fourth bases, and just generally little variance in gameplay or pace of the games.
exactly man thats why ive tried pushing blizzard to put this in the ladder smallmap its pretty balanced so far (30+games)
I think that map may be a little too small... unless we want to go back to close spawns Slag Pits.
On November 03 2012 05:37 tree139 wrote: There was a post about units or something on the battle.net website, and 9/10 of people who contributed said simply "new maps?" or "maps?" Like pages and pages of this.
And then the new ladder starts and it is the same old stagnant bunch. Similar to how in times past people were complaining of short rush distances and monotonous play, the current maps offer very long rush distances and monotonous play, only it takes 5-10 minutes longer to see any action. The map pool as it stands has turned the game into a snooze fest of Fast expand vs Fast expand, sometimes a quick third. This has killed spectating for me, as every game looks the same And is not action packed as they used to be.
The best solution I think would be to add some maps that have different spawning positions that entail different gameplay, as well as harder to hold naturals without a ramp and choke. Think Metalopolis or Shattered Temple. Close spawns had a tough time holding natural expansions, not to mention it was Very Difficult to secure a third. But cross spawns it could turn into 5base vs 5base split map. Thats cool to see, variances in gameplay and situational decisions that players have to make based upon the circumstances.
So yeah I understand that they are busy with HOTS, so why not rotate back in some old maps? Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, Shattered Temple, etc. And make the map pool bigger and add more vetoes. People, myself included, are really getting bored of the same 8 maps for months and months. It's boring and killing the game. Especially considering how similar all of the current maps are: long rush, easy to take natural, third, and usually fourth bases, and just generally little variance in gameplay or pace of the games.
exactly man thats why ive tried pushing blizzard to put this in the ladder smallmap its pretty balanced so far (30+games)
I think that map may be a little too small... unless we want to go back to close spawns Slag Pits.
what? why? its pretty balanced, i just need to test more tvp and zvp now
On November 03 2012 05:37 tree139 wrote: There was a post about units or something on the battle.net website, and 9/10 of people who contributed said simply "new maps?" or "maps?" Like pages and pages of this.
And then the new ladder starts and it is the same old stagnant bunch. Similar to how in times past people were complaining of short rush distances and monotonous play, the current maps offer very long rush distances and monotonous play, only it takes 5-10 minutes longer to see any action. The map pool as it stands has turned the game into a snooze fest of Fast expand vs Fast expand, sometimes a quick third. This has killed spectating for me, as every game looks the same And is not action packed as they used to be.
The best solution I think would be to add some maps that have different spawning positions that entail different gameplay, as well as harder to hold naturals without a ramp and choke. Think Metalopolis or Shattered Temple. Close spawns had a tough time holding natural expansions, not to mention it was Very Difficult to secure a third. But cross spawns it could turn into 5base vs 5base split map. Thats cool to see, variances in gameplay and situational decisions that players have to make based upon the circumstances.
So yeah I understand that they are busy with HOTS, so why not rotate back in some old maps? Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, Shattered Temple, etc. And make the map pool bigger and add more vetoes. People, myself included, are really getting bored of the same 8 maps for months and months. It's boring and killing the game. Especially considering how similar all of the current maps are: long rush, easy to take natural, third, and usually fourth bases, and just generally little variance in gameplay or pace of the games.
exactly man thats why ive tried pushing blizzard to put this in the ladder smallmap its pretty balanced so far (30+games)
I think that map may be a little too small... unless we want to go back to close spawns Slag Pits.
Truth be told, I loved close spawns slag pits in PvT and TvP, I agree close spawns are a bit broken with any matchup involving Z though but in PvP, TvP and TvT close spawns can be pretty funny.
If it's balanced it's balanced though, the rest is subjective. You either like rush maps or you don't.
On November 03 2012 05:37 tree139 wrote: There was a post about units or something on the battle.net website, and 9/10 of people who contributed said simply "new maps?" or "maps?" Like pages and pages of this.
And then the new ladder starts and it is the same old stagnant bunch. Similar to how in times past people were complaining of short rush distances and monotonous play, the current maps offer very long rush distances and monotonous play, only it takes 5-10 minutes longer to see any action. The map pool as it stands has turned the game into a snooze fest of Fast expand vs Fast expand, sometimes a quick third. This has killed spectating for me, as every game looks the same And is not action packed as they used to be.
The best solution I think would be to add some maps that have different spawning positions that entail different gameplay, as well as harder to hold naturals without a ramp and choke. Think Metalopolis or Shattered Temple. Close spawns had a tough time holding natural expansions, not to mention it was Very Difficult to secure a third. But cross spawns it could turn into 5base vs 5base split map. Thats cool to see, variances in gameplay and situational decisions that players have to make based upon the circumstances.
So yeah I understand that they are busy with HOTS, so why not rotate back in some old maps? Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, Shattered Temple, etc. And make the map pool bigger and add more vetoes. People, myself included, are really getting bored of the same 8 maps for months and months. It's boring and killing the game. Especially considering how similar all of the current maps are: long rush, easy to take natural, third, and usually fourth bases, and just generally little variance in gameplay or pace of the games.
exactly man thats why ive tried pushing blizzard to put this in the ladder smallmap its pretty balanced so far (30+games)
I think that map may be a little too small... unless we want to go back to close spawns Slag Pits.
Truth be told, I loved close spawns slag pits in PvT and TvP, I agree close spawns are a bit broken with any matchup involving Z though but in PvP, TvP and TvT close spawns can be pretty funny.
If it's balanced it's balanced though, the rest is subjective. You either like rush maps or you don't.
yeah what usually happens zvt on the map is some form of 7 pool or 15 14 (meta the rush) and just punishing the terran with drone harass. (zerg usually wins though) im not entirely happy with pvz though, as mostly the protoss can only do zealot rush or cannon contain, but ive worked with some different wall offs to make a sort-of normal game. if people want to test the map ill be on all night (channel motm.)
thats insightful - back on topic, i think we do need smaller style maps maybe not to the extreme i want, but even pro bw map pools had a variation of sizing, so it wasnt just fast expand then attack the first to make a third, with (YOU CANT ATTACK ME I HAVE A SIZE 2 RAMP.)
thats insightful - back on topic, i think we do need smaller style maps maybe not to the extreme i want, but even pro bw map pools had a variation of sizing, so it wasnt just fast expand then attack the first to make a third, with (YOU CANT ATTACK ME I HAVE A SIZE 2 RAMP.)
Yeah, I agree with that. Usually I think about structure and third bases and all this stuff but just making some smaller maps would be nice.
Regardless of which map you want to discuss (TDA, Antiga, etc.), I think it's worth noting that just because a map has matchup %s that are close to 50, doesn't make it a well-designed or fun map.
On November 03 2012 07:21 Fatam wrote: Regardless of which map you want to discuss (TDA, Antiga, etc.), I think it's worth noting that just because a map has matchup %s that are close to 50, doesn't make it a well-designed or fun map.
Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective? I consider Antiga fun, OxyGenesis doesn't. There it ends, little more to debate a subjective difference opinion. What's next? Debating if Angelina Jolie or Megan Fox is prettier?
On November 03 2012 07:21 Fatam wrote: Regardless of which map you want to discuss (TDA, Antiga, etc.), I think it's worth noting that just because a map has matchup %s that are close to 50, doesn't make it a well-designed or fun map.
Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective? I consider Antiga fun, OxyGenesis doesn't. There it ends, little more to debate a subjective difference opinion. What's next? Debating if Angelina Jolie or Megan Fox is prettier?
Your arguments amount to saying "most people don't know what they're talking about".
No, his arguments amount to saying "different people can have different valid opinions about stuff". He doesn't claim that the community is wrong, he says that it dissents. Learn to read.
Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective?
Ah, but there are some subjective things that the vast majority of players agree upon, which makes them (for all intents and purposes)"objective". Since after all, Blizzard is concerned with what the vast majority wants.
- Early/midgame bases that you can hardly ever take are bad (4th on Antiga). Getting stuck on 3 bases or less every game isn't fun. (people like variety, you can't argue against that) - Some people may be ok with TDA as a whole, but most protoss' dislike it because getting stuck in 4gate wars every single time isn't fun (again, people like variety in their games).
I think it might be slightly harder to make an argument against some of the other maps, but with those 2 it's just too easy.
Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective?
Ah, but there are some subjective things that the vast majority of players agree upon, which makes them (for all intents and purposes)"objective". Since after all, Blizzard is concerned with what the vast majority wants.
- Early/midgame bases that you can hardly ever take are bad (4th on Antiga). Getting stuck on 3 bases or less every game isn't fun. (people like variety, you can't argue against that) - Some people may be ok with TDA as a whole, but most protoss' dislike it because getting stuck in 4gate wars every single time isn't fun (again, people like variety in their games).
I think it might be slightly harder to make an argument against some of the other maps, but with those 2 it's just too easy.
Here's the thing, you talk about variety, but no other map encourages 4-gates like TDA. No other map makes for as excruciating a late game as Antiga Shipyard. They, in a way, actually add diversity to the map pool. The games on the map, in and of themselves, might not be diverse, but among the grander scheme(the whole map pool), they bring it to the table.
Note though, that diversity doesn't necessarily equal fun, I personally dislike both of those maps, but in large part because they're old and played out, and not so much the way the map plays.
Fun is a very subjective thing, but Blizzard's latest mapmaking efforts try to encapsulate it as best as their team can manage. Say what you want about their maps, pull as many statistics as you want and cry imba as much as you want, but I'd rather watch 100 games on Howling Peaks, Korhal City, Star Station, Akilon Wastes and Newkirk City, as opposed to 100 games on Whirlwind, Daybreak, Abyssal City, Entombed Valley, Shakuras Plateau, and Antiga Shipyard. The former set of maps has a design that goes beyond the focus of balance, to try to make for exciting gameplay, whereas the latter set is comprised of maps that are either woefully played out, or standard to the point that they might as well be. Cloud Kingdom falls neatly between the two categories, so I leave that out of my sights.
This is all my opinion, but I happen to think it an enlightened one, take it for what you will.
I don't get it, you are arguing with me in order to agree with me. lol
edit: and what I meant by "variety" is variety of games within the same map. e.g. you don't want every PvP on TDA to be a 4gate. If 4gate (or whatever strategy) is a little bit favored on a certain map, that's fine, but when the map -forces- it, that's different.
Of course, there will always be the few people that love 4gate wars every time, but they are certainly in the minority.
If restaurant A serves nothing but spam (the food equivalent of 4gate), and restaurant B serves steak, fish, vegetables, all sorts of cool dishes.. of course there will be the minority that really likes spam, but most people will choose restaurant B.
Can you objectively say that a perfectly-cooked steak is better than spam? Nope. But do we need something to be 100% objectively correct to move forward? I don't think so.
On November 03 2012 12:07 Fatam wrote: I don't get it, you are arguing with me in order to agree with me. lol
edit: and what I meant by "variety" is variety of games within the same map. e.g. you don't want every PvP on TDA to be a 4gate. If 4gate (or whatever strategy) is a little bit favored on a certain map, that's fine, but when the map -forces- it, that's different.
Of course, there will always be the few people that love 4gate wars every time, but they are certainly in the minority.
If restaurant A serves nothing but spam (the food equivalent of 4gate), and restaurant B serves steak, fish, vegetables, all sorts of cool dishes.. of course there will be the minority that really likes spam, but most people will choose restaurant B.
Can you objectively say that a perfectly-cooked steak is better than spam? Nope. But do we need something to be 100% objectively correct to move forward? I don't think so.
Well, that's the thing, we're sick and tired of 4-gate wars now, but if we'd gone this whole time without a single map that allowed it to happen, it might be exciting to see such a game, as it all comes down to knife-edge control. This is similar to how people are getting sick of super-macro NR20 maps like Metropolis, but in the early life of the game they were refreshing to see, since they didn't exist yet, and long macro games were rare. What would be ideal would be to have a map pool that is totally diverse in this regard. Have a map that allows for rushes, have a map that pushes games into the late stage, have a map that rewards positioning and flanking, cheese, etc., etc., and you'd have a more exciting variety. Of course, having maps that allow for multiple styles is important, so part of our challenge is to make maps that bend toward a certain style of play, but allow for skilled players to do with it what they want. Only a very small portion of community maps made thus far have touched upon this golden zone of mapmaking, by small I mean less than 10. Our skills haven't developed enough yet, maps are still too ambiguous as to what they are(I actually wonder if this is the right word). I digress, but it's an overarching point.
On November 03 2012 12:07 Fatam wrote: I don't get it, you are arguing with me in order to agree with me. lol
edit: and what I meant by "variety" is variety of games within the same map. e.g. you don't want every PvP on TDA to be a 4gate. If 4gate (or whatever strategy) is a little bit favored on a certain map, that's fine, but when the map -forces- it, that's different.
Of course, there will always be the few people that love 4gate wars every time, but they are certainly in the minority.
If restaurant A serves nothing but spam (the food equivalent of 4gate), and restaurant B serves steak, fish, vegetables, all sorts of cool dishes.. of course there will be the minority that really likes spam, but most people will choose restaurant B.
Can you objectively say that a perfectly-cooked steak is better than spam? Nope. But do we need something to be 100% objectively correct to move forward? I don't think so.
Well, that's the thing, we're sick and tired of 4-gate wars now, but if we'd gone this whole time without a single map that allowed it to happen, it might be exciting to see such a game, as it all comes down to knife-edge control. This is similar to how people are getting sick of super-macro NR20 maps like Metropolis, but in the early life of the game they were refreshing to see, since they didn't exist yet, and long macro games were rare. What would be ideal would be to have a map pool that is totally diverse in this regard. Have a map that allows for rushes, have a map that pushes games into the late stage, have a map that rewards positioning and flanking, cheese, etc., etc., and you'd have a more exciting variety. Of course, having maps that allow for multiple styles is important, so part of our challenge is to make maps that bend toward a certain style of play, but allow for skilled players to do with it what they want. Only a very small portion of community maps made thus far have touched upon this golden zone of mapmaking, by small I mean less than 10. Our skills haven't developed enough yet, maps are still too ambiguous as to what they are(I actually wonder if this is the right word). I digress, but it's an overarching point.
But you've sidestepped the issue of balance and left out the time horizon for when a map gets figured out, which could be pretty quickly depending on the map, no matter how exciting it is at first. Even if it allows new strategies, once it becomes clear that there's a clear advantage in a matchup, or only one best way to play the map, it won't be interesting to watch anymore at all for exactly the reasons you say the old maps aren't interesting.
If it's too easy to figure out a map, then it's imbalanced even before it is fully solved, and that must be avoided. However, you could argue that a map that eventually gets solved and imba after a few months is still a map worth having for those few months because it was fair and it was fresh during its lifetime. I wouldn't mind that style of map rotation, if it was possible. But clearly the SC2 scene hasn't had that mentality or reality.
In that case, the trend has been towards "macro" maps because of the 3rd base balance problem. At the same time the game evolved and, inevitably, macro play became safer. That gets us to where we are now and experimentation with "unfair" things seems more attractive. But only at this point is it possible.
With a metagame reset, anything goes (to a point) and a new map rotation paradigm might allow us to focus on interesting maps over balanced maps. I hope this happens, but until it does you can't fault the trend of fair/macro maps to establish a baseline for what works. Within that paradigm, it's the job of pro players to push the boundaries of the metagame to create interesting games, not so much the mapmakers to create interesting departures from expectation.
On the point of beta maps, I agree that it's better to test the limits of the new balance with extremes first, but they should have included "solid" proven maps from the start as well. But we have that now so whatevs, we'll see what comes of it. I don't think the SC2 team is large enough and has enough resources to analyze every variable in isolation, so I don't blame them for intuition, scattergun, and triage.
IMO I think that the maximum a map should be on the ladder is 2 seasons(4 months) with half the map pool being switched out every season. We have more than enough good maps and mapmakers to choose 4 each season. We have had the current WOL map pool for too long with the next change coming in 2 months time. It is starting to get boring playing on the same maps all the time.
On November 03 2012 15:07 Bwaaaa wrote: IMO I think that the maximum a map should be on the ladder is 2 seasons(4 months) with half the map pool being switched out every season. We have more than enough good maps and mapmakers to choose 4 each season. We have had the current WOL map pool for too long with the next change coming in 2 months time. It is starting to get boring playing on the same maps all the time.
I think a map on average every 2 weeks is fine overall, but just for ladder I think that's a bit much. I'd say about one new ladder map per month and one new non-ladder map per month for tournaments.
On November 03 2012 17:23 Sinedd wrote: maps should change every season
maybe not all of them but like a half
this way we would have an awesome map rotation, just like in BW and then different playstyles can be forced which would benefit the game so much !!!
its not even hard Blizzard.. wtf happened to this company
Absolutely nothing, at least not recently. This is exactly the same that happens in wow whenever a new expansion is coming up. All their reassources gets focused on that and nothing happens in the main game for a good few months. Keep in mind that this is despite the fact that WOW have a much larger budget than Starcraft.
Critizese it all you want but reality is this have been standard Blizzard procedure for over 5 years.
Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because it was supposed to be a 4 spawn map but it had to be made forced cross to 'fix' it. The same goes for Entombed. Note that I am saying nothing about the gameplay of those maps, there are certain matchups that I really like on both of them. Any map maker worth their salt would be able to look at the overviews and say that certain spawns wont work. When a map doesn't play out how it was designed to play out you can say that it is objectively a poorly designed map.
I completely agree with Eat The Path. We can look at the old beta maps with rose tinted spectacles and say 'hey, I remember some great games on that map, maybe it wasn't so bad after all' but we're only thinking that way because we've been stuck with the same maps for sooooooo long. I don't think Blizzard maps are terrible, but they have shown several times that they don't fully grasp what it takes to make a tournament level competitive SC2 map. Close spawns is BASIC. It's one of the first things you think about when you start off down the road of map making.
On November 03 2012 07:21 Fatam wrote: Regardless of which map you want to discuss (TDA, Antiga, etc.), I think it's worth noting that just because a map has matchup %s that are close to 50, doesn't make it a well-designed or fun map.
Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective? I consider Antiga fun, OxyGenesis doesn't. There it ends, little more to debate a subjective difference opinion. What's next? Debating if Angelina Jolie or Megan Fox is prettier?
Your arguments amount to saying "most people don't know what they're talking about".
No, my argument amounts to 'People all disagree about what makes good maps and they are for the most part very self centred people who seem to think that because others subjectively disagree they don't know what they are talking about.
I can understand that someone thinks TDA is a very good map if that person likes to 4gate vs 4gate, doesn't make that person not knowing what he or she is talking about, just different things to like in this game. And say what you will about 4gate vs 4gate, but it's the embodiment of 'pure skill, pure micro', there is no luck involved whatsoever and it has a very high skill ceiling and the player with the better control will win.
Yap, and what is fun and what isn't is subjective?
Ah, but there are some subjective things that the vast majority of players agree upon, which makes them (for all intents and purposes)"objective". Since after all, Blizzard is concerned with what the vast majority wants.
I'm pretty sure this thread has shown that things aren't as objective and universally agreed upon as some people like to think.
- Early/midgame bases that you can hardly ever take are bad (4th on Antiga). Getting stuck on 3 bases or less every game isn't fun. (people like variety, you can't argue against that)
Getting stuck on 3 bases isn't fun no. But antiga makes it hard, not impossible, to get a fourth, that's skill ceiling. To capture a fourth on antiga relies on maintaining map control and having good map awareness. Which is why I personally like the map because multi pronged aggression and map awareness are some of my strengths in this game to contrast my poor macro. I like antiga because I'm good on that map, especially in ZvT I find it hard to lose, to matter the spawns.
Some people may be ok with TDA as a whole, but most protoss' dislike it because getting stuck in 4gate wars every single time isn't fun (again, people like variety in their games).
See above, some people like 4gate wars and I can definitely see why since it's one of the most ultimate tests of micro in this game.
I think it might be slightly harder to make an argument against some of the other maps, but with those 2 it's just too easy.
And yet I provided counter arguments and I'm someone who likes the fact that the fourth is hard to take on antiga and relies on map awareness and correct army positioning and splitting to retain as well as being proactive with killing rocks. I like hard to secure bases in general because it plays to my strengths, that's all. I do not like easy to secure bases because it doesn't play to my strengths, I'm a very impatient player that needs to do something, if there's nothing to do I start to just attack people when I shouldn't into well fortified positions thereby costing me games.
@ what Oxy said - There is something I heard someone say a while back which I thought was very true, concerning the "rose-colored glasses" syndrome and maps. "Just because a map has had great games on it, doesn't necessarily make it good. If lots of great players play lots of games on the map, it is inevitable that great games will happen, regardless of the quality of the map" (I'm paraphrasing a bit)
That quote doesn't completely address what we were talking about, but I thought it should be added on real quick to what Oxy was saying.
Anyway, I'm all for agreeing to disagree here and moving on w/ the discussion, as I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.
On November 04 2012 07:42 Fatam wrote: @ what Oxy said - There is something I heard someone say a while back which I thought was very true, concerning the "rose-colored glasses" syndrome and maps. "Just because a map has had great games on it, doesn't necessarily make it good. If lots of great players play lots of games on the map, it is inevitable that great games will happen, regardless of the quality of the map" (I'm paraphrasing a bit)
Yap, and I think barely any great games happen on say Ohana and a lot of them happen on Antiga. And what you consider a great game is subjective, not objective, simple as that. If scrappy situations, base races, expansions constantly dying is not your take on a 'great game', I can't discuss that then, that's subjective. However I do believe such games are more likely on Antiga and less likely on Ohana. I mean, let's list why I consider Ohana to be one of the worst maps ever in competitive play, even worse than Kulas Ravine in my book:
- The map is small - There is basically no 'choice' to make for what base you want to take, no risk reward ratio in it, there is basically only one expansion progression and anything except that is almost ninja expanding - There are too few bases - the third and natural are both too easy to keep - there's not a lot of terrain to use creatively - it's bad map for blink play and reapers and just in general harass based play - it's a good map for mech, I think mech is about the most boring thing on the planet and I don't enjoy watching it.
As you can see, all these things are quite subjective.
Anyway, I'm all for agreeing to disagree here and moving on w/ the discussion, as I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.
I'm sorry, but if what makes a map good is objective or subjective is very much part of the discussion. Whichever it is basically decides the entire course of action.
I don't know why you're strawman'ing Ohana. I never claimed that Ohana was a good map.
I'm sorry, but if what makes a map good is objective or subjective is very much part of the discussion. Whichever it is basically decides the entire course of action.
Well if you're going to disagree w/ what most of us consider good maps (lots of variety of gameplay/openings are viable on the map, no race has a disadvantage, etc.) and can't be convinced otherwise, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you're going to continue to think TDA and Antiga are examples of good maps and we are going to continue to think that they aren't, then that's an impassable divide. All we can do is discuss -what to do- based on the fact that people disagree on what makes a good map.
Maybe we could spruce up this a little.... Now, ideally the best thing for balance and keeping players interested would be a map pool of 8 maps per season, (1v1 maps.)
***When the season ends, replace 4 of the unpopular maps with 4 NEW ONES. - Have the community as well as blizzard hold the ^new maps^ in a PTR ----> a season AHEAD of time to make sure they will be fit for the real ladder. That way it keeps things fresh and keeping the voting routine would allow people content with playing on the old maps. - I also think we should do what Call of Duty does and other games in terms of keeping the great maps fresh. So lets pretend Daybreak is by far the favorite map, you would introduce a new texture/look to that map at the end of the season if that map stays. (Mar Sara Desert or something) That way the maps that do stay could feel new when the new season starts, instead of just BLAH no new maps guess ill try to climb the ladder a few notches.
probably just dreaming but you cant say im the only one... 4 new maps GAHHH so fun.
On November 04 2012 09:10 Fatam wrote: I don't know why you're strawman'ing Ohana. I never claimed that Ohana was a good map.
That is my point, you haven't, others have, that's why it is subjective Ohana was second in the TLMC showing an overwhelming confidence in it from both the community and the staff.
Well if you're going to disagree w/ what most of us consider good maps (lots of variety of gameplay/openings are viable on the map, no race has a disadvantage, etc.) and can't be convinced otherwise, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you're going to continue to think TDA and Antiga are examples of good maps and we are going to continue to think that they aren't, then that's an impassable divide. All we can do is discuss -what to do- based on the fact that people disagree on what makes a good map.
No, I'm saying that no one agrees on what is a good map? The mapmaking community isn't united. Have you read this thread? Various people have come forward to defend these maps.
What I'm saying is that the mapmaking community is at its core divided on what are good maps and what maps aren't, everyone disagrees because it's subjective. And people call each other 'having no idea of what good maps are' left and right for disagreeing.
Right. So obviously there has to be a voting system (or something similar), since we will never be united as to what a good map is.
edit: what we SHOULD do, imo, is make sure the voting system is better than it might otherwise be. Where voters see the maps, let's figure out how to put emphasis on the gameplay of the map, so we don't have a case of "prettiest overview wins". Because I think we can at least agree that a map's gameplay is more important than the looks. (regardless of what you or me might consider good gameplay)
1) Make it so you can't see the small thumbnail-sized map overviews, you HAVE to click a link and the link goes to a full-size imgur overview of the map. Or have the full-sized image inside a spoiler tag (probably best). 2) A brief bullet list, huge and bolded, from the mapmaker himself. It would list the map features he wants people to know about. We should put a limit on the amount of items that can be listed, maybe 5, so that some people don't hog the page by putting 20 things.
On November 04 2012 10:24 Fatam wrote: Right. So obviously there has to be a voting system (or something similar), since we will never be united as to what a good map is.
edit: what we SHOULD do, imo, is make sure the voting system is better than it might otherwise be. Where voters see the maps, let's figure out how to put emphasis on the gameplay of the map, so we don't have a case of "prettiest overview wins". Because I think we can at least agree that a map's gameplay is more important than the looks. (regardless of what you or me might consider good gameplay)
1) Make it so you can't see the small thumbnail-sized map overviews, you HAVE to click a link and the link goes to a full-size imgur overview of the map. Or have the full-sized image inside a spoiler tag (probably best). 2) A brief bullet list, huge and bolded, from the mapmaker himself. It would list the map features he wants people to know about. We should put a limit on the amount of items that can be listed, maybe 5, so that some people don't hog the page by putting 20 things.
Put two maps vs eachother. Which map is more balanced? WE HAVE A WINNER!! (looks are irrelevant as they can always be improved.) BOOM.
On November 04 2012 09:10 Fatam wrote: I don't know why you're strawman'ing Ohana. I never claimed that Ohana was a good map.
That is my point, you haven't, others have, that's why it is subjective Ohana was second in the TLMC showing an overwhelming confidence in it from both the community and the staff.
Well if you're going to disagree w/ what most of us consider good maps (lots of variety of gameplay/openings are viable on the map, no race has a disadvantage, etc.) and can't be convinced otherwise, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you're going to continue to think TDA and Antiga are examples of good maps and we are going to continue to think that they aren't, then that's an impassable divide. All we can do is discuss -what to do- based on the fact that people disagree on what makes a good map.
No, I'm saying that no one agrees on what is a good map? The mapmaking community isn't united. Have you read this thread? Various people have come forward to defend these maps.
What I'm saying is that the mapmaking community is at its core divided on what are good maps and what maps aren't, everyone disagrees because it's subjective. And people call each other 'having no idea of what good maps are' left and right for disagreeing.
Statement: "Most people don't know what they're talking about."
Statement: "Map quality is completely subjective."
These two things can be independent and concurrent. I don't see what the hangup is. Nevertheless you seem to insist that:
a. There is no such thing as a bad map. b. Even if there was, no one is qualified to point it out.
Put two maps vs eachother. Which map is more balanced? WE HAVE A WINNER!! (looks are irrelevant as they can always be improved.) BOOM.
So you want to have map playoffs? lol. I don't know if that's the fairest way to do it. What if the best map and the second best map face off in the first round? :-P
Put two maps vs eachother. Which map is more balanced? WE HAVE A WINNER!! (looks are irrelevant as they can always be improved.) BOOM.
So you want to have map playoffs? lol. I don't know if that's the fairest way to do it. What if the best map and the second best map face off in the first round? :-P
no i was regarding the "you cant say what map is better."
On November 04 2012 09:10 Fatam wrote: I don't know why you're strawman'ing Ohana. I never claimed that Ohana was a good map.
That is my point, you haven't, others have, that's why it is subjective Ohana was second in the TLMC showing an overwhelming confidence in it from both the community and the staff.
Well if you're going to disagree w/ what most of us consider good maps (lots of variety of gameplay/openings are viable on the map, no race has a disadvantage, etc.) and can't be convinced otherwise, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. If you're going to continue to think TDA and Antiga are examples of good maps and we are going to continue to think that they aren't, then that's an impassable divide. All we can do is discuss -what to do- based on the fact that people disagree on what makes a good map.
No, I'm saying that no one agrees on what is a good map? The mapmaking community isn't united. Have you read this thread? Various people have come forward to defend these maps.
What I'm saying is that the mapmaking community is at its core divided on what are good maps and what maps aren't, everyone disagrees because it's subjective. And people call each other 'having no idea of what good maps are' left and right for disagreeing.
Statement: "Most people don't know what they're talking about."
Statement: "Map quality is completely subjective."
These two things can be independent and concurrent. I don't see what the hangup is. Nevertheless you seem to insist that:
Maybe, but the former is not what I'm saying despite your insistence.
a. There is no such thing as a bad map. b. Even if there was, no one is qualified to point it out.
That's absurd.
Technically this is the case. Even though there are some maps which almost everyone will agree on that they are bad so it's just not wise for tournaments to use them. However, the crux of it isn't to point out bad maps, it's to point out 'good maps', the maps people want to see. People are far more divided on which maps they want to include than which maps they want to exclude. However, yes, just like there's no objective measure of a good/bad film or painting, there's no objective measure of a good/bad map. It isn't like mathematics where a calculation is correct or it isn't, I'm afraid.
On November 04 2012 22:26 ArcticRaven wrote: Siskos - do you have an opinion ? Do you think anything should be done ?
Case 1 : Yes, express it. Case 2 : Shut up and leave this thread, you're useless.
Alright, my opinion is that Ohana, Shakuras Plateau, Entombed Valley, and Tal'darim Altar are terrible maps and should be removed from the ladder immediately. Furthemore, rotational maps are fundamentally broken concept which anyone with a working brain should be able to immediately see and therefore should be either forced cross or not exist at all. Apart from that more than 2 player maps are also fundamentally broken because there exist bases which are actually mains but now have to serve as expansions meaning that they have to be balanced for both uses which just isn't possible, they will either be too easy to defend as an expansion or too hard to defend as a main. You can often just wall of a 'natural' on such bases to get access to two expansions, completely broken.
Apart from that, neutral depots should be removed from ramps linea recta, they aren't needed, they stop legitimate lowground walling sim-city and there is no statistic whatsoever that the walling strat versus Zerg is imbalanced and every progamer at this point acknowledges that if you tell a Zerg in advance you're going to do that it won't ever get up. It's much harder to deal with the 3 bunker in range of hatch blocks on Shakuras and Cloud Kingdom than the lowground walling strat which just shouldn't get up. It stems from an old, and unproven idea and massive whine from IdrA.
Apart from that the ladder pool should include Abyssal City and Muspelheim, also the old maps Metalopolis and Xel'Naga Caverns should be added back in as well as being made completely grid-perfect symmetrical. Antiga should get forced cross and gold bases should remain.
Anyone who disagrees with this of course doesn't know what they are talking about.™
So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything?
On November 04 2012 22:41 OxyGenesis wrote: Agreed, please don't derail another thread.
Also maps, like film, painting and music have both subjective and objective elements. Stop trying to over simplify things to prove your point.
I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying things if you think there is anything objective about art. The only thing objective is balance numbers, and if balanced is even good or bad, is again subjective.
Here's my idea: Every Ladder Season, Blizzard holds a map competition for a chance to get into the ladder. Also, every ladder season, 1-2 unpopular maps are removed. Since it's only addition of 1 map per season, people can choose to veto it, so it won't hurt that many people.
Do the same with 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 etc. = people motivated to map
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything?
It's ok, it's ok. Now I know who I was talking with.
I just don't get it, it's a bunch of people sprouting their subjective opinions against each other 'I think we should do this!', 'No, we should do this instead!' while neither party has any numerical or empirical arguments to back their course of action up. It doesn't contribute to anything.
In the end, everyone likes maps they enjoy playing on and enjoy watching games on and they like a map pool which has those maps, that's a surprise there.
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything?
It's ok, it's ok. Now I know who I was talking with.
I just don't get it, it's a bunch of people sprouting their subjective opinions against each other 'I think we should do this!', 'No, we should do this instead!' while neither party has any numerical or empirical arguments to back their course of action up. It doesn't contribute to anything.
In the end, everyone likes maps they enjoy playing on and enjoy watching games on and they like a map pool which has those maps, that's a surprise there.
Do you realize you're the only one disagreeing right here right now in this thread ?
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: So, now you have it, what are you going to do with it, how does it contribute to anything?
It's ok, it's ok. Now I know who I was talking with.
I just don't get it, it's a bunch of people sprouting their subjective opinions against each other 'I think we should do this!', 'No, we should do this instead!' while neither party has any numerical or empirical arguments to back their course of action up. It doesn't contribute to anything.
In the end, everyone likes maps they enjoy playing on and enjoy watching games on and they like a map pool which has those maps, that's a surprise there.
Do you realize you're the only one disagreeing right here right now in this thread ?
Guess I should stop fighting for lost causes.
You do realize that that's not true?
Sumadin: "Agree with all of those points [of SiskosGoatee]. "
Wnio "ive been arguing and will continue to say blizzard maps are NOT just shit."
NewSunShine (replying to above) "Woah. I'm not the only one."
Blarkh: "No, his arguments amount to saying "different people can have different valid opinions about stuff". He doesn't claim that the community is wrong, he says that it dissents. Learn to read."
NewSunShine:
"Here's the thing, you talk about variety, but no other map encourages 4-gates like TDA. No other map makes for as excruciating a late game as Antiga Shipyard. They, in a way, actually add diversity to the map pool. The games on the map, in and of themselves, might not be diverse, but among the grander scheme(the whole map pool), they bring it to the table. "
As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: Furthemore, rotational maps are fundamentally broken concept which anyone with a working brain should be able to immediately see and therefore should be either forced cross or not exist at all. Apart from that more than 2 player maps are also fundamentally broken because there exist bases which are actually mains but now have to serve as expansions meaning that they have to be balanced for both uses which just isn't possible, they will either be too easy to defend as an expansion or too hard to defend as a main. You can often just wall of a 'natural' on such bases to get access to two expansions, completely broken.
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying things if you think there is anything objective about art. The only thing objective is balance numbers, and if balanced is even good or bad, is again subjective.
The argument I've quoted at the top has a few major problems. First is the second quote, which immediately relegates your argument to opinion. Second problem: you don't know any of that to be true. Maps with 3+ spawns have been around for literally this game's entire life as an e-sport, the fact that having another natural+main that are paired together hasn't harmed anything, mostly because in the late-game I can harass the hell out of a base setup like that, and that's what happens.
Also, I have a working brain, and I see good reason to make rotational maps(I have 2 WIP's right now, but you probably wouldn't like either one I take it). Balance isn't everything. Making a map like this is all nice and good, but you take away so much from the gameplay that it becomes a waste of time. Part of the appeal of 4p rotational maps is to make a map with several spawn setups that either player can end up in, so part of the challenge becomes making a map this way that is reasonably balanced, but still has a variety to it(read: focus on gameplay too!).
Believe me, I've taken far more time to think about this subject than you apparently have. I've come to realize that having a balanced map is good for the players of an e-sport, but having a map that's fun to play on is good for the players as well as the spectators, you can't ignore one just because empirical data is what makes an argument. My goal has always been to reach the best possible compromise of the two. Now, if you have anything substantial to offer to the discussion, aside from another total disagreement for the sake of discord, bring it. If not, kindly shut up.
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: Furthemore, rotational maps are fundamentally broken concept which anyone with a working brain should be able to immediately see and therefore should be either forced cross or not exist at all. Apart from that more than 2 player maps are also fundamentally broken because there exist bases which are actually mains but now have to serve as expansions meaning that they have to be balanced for both uses which just isn't possible, they will either be too easy to defend as an expansion or too hard to defend as a main. You can often just wall of a 'natural' on such bases to get access to two expansions, completely broken.
On November 04 2012 22:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:I'm pretty sure you're oversimplifying things if you think there is anything objective about art. The only thing objective is balance numbers, and if balanced is even good or bad, is again subjective.
The argument I've quoted at the top has a few major problems. First is the second quote, which immediately relegates your argument to opinion.
Of course, I was asked to give my subjective opinion, so I did. The reason I don'toften give them in discussions like this is because I consider it useless, it's just people giving their subjective opinions without a real discussion.
Second problem: you don't know any of that to be true. Maps with 3+ spawns have been around for literally this game's entire life as an e-sport, the fact that having another natural+main that are paired together hasn't harmed anything, mostly because in the late-game I can harass the hell out of a base setup like that, and that's what happens.
There is no true or false here, like you identified correctly, this is my subjective opinion, I personally don't like to play on that or watch that. I believe that every base except a natural and a main should have at least two attack paths into it. I'm sure there are many people who don't consider that a problem but I don't like that kind of play on a map personally. 2 bases having only one attack path into them because they are actually a main and a natural is a definite no-no for me, I don't like it, personally of course.
Also, I have a working brain, and I see good reason to make rotational maps(I have 2 WIP's right now, but you probably wouldn't like either one I take it). Balance isn't everything. Making a map like this is all nice and good, but you take away so much from the gameplay that it becomes a waste of time. Part of the appeal of 4p rotational maps is to make a map with several spawn setups that either player can end up in, so part of the challenge becomes making a map this way that is reasonably balanced, but still has a variety to it(read: focus on gameplay too!).
Yes, but I, personally again, don't like that kind of gameplay. I think rotational maps have a huge scouting problem where one guy with scout the other last and the other will scout the one first. It leads to this awkward situation of one guy being able to enter in a base in TvT and see if there's a gas and the other can't. This is just luck, there was no argument to decide in which way you scout with your scv, you just pick one randomly. I don't like that. I want to be able to say that 'Okay, if I send my worker now, I will be at his base at time x, if I can't get in them he has to have actually cut scvs for walling, therefore I know that for him to hide that for me he has made a concession'.
Apart from that, more than 4 player maps have the issue that I already outlined with making expansions which do not have enough vectors of attack. Again, these are all personal issues I personally and subjectively have with those maps, it's an opinion, not a fact.
Believe me, I've taken far more time to think about this subject than you apparently have. I've come to realize that having a balanced map is good for the players of an e-sport, but having a map that's fun to play on is good for the players as well as the spectators, you can't ignore one just because empirical data is what makes an argument. My goal has always been to reach the best possible compromise of the two. Now, if you have anything substantial to offer to the discussion, aside from another total disagreement for the sake of discord, bring it. If not, kindly shut up.
You misunderstand, it's not about balance, I just subjectively don't think that more than 2 player maps, and especially rotational maps, are fun. I think the idea of both scouting at the same time, but his worker getting into my base and I not in his base is extremely frustrating. Consequently, winning a game because the opposite happened and I got to see his gas but he didn't get to see my gas feels like a hollow victory where you were just lucky.
I just don't like it personally, and what people like or do not like is again subjective.
On November 05 2012 01:34 SiskosGoatee wrote: Of course, I was asked to give my subjective opinion, so I did. The reason I don'toften give them in discussions like this is because I consider it useless, it's just people giving their subjective opinions without a real discussion.
Then instead of forging discord among a useless opinion-fest, try instead to push a more meaningful discussion. Constantly disagreeing with everyone doesn't help anything, it just contributes to the problem.
On November 05 2012 01:34 SiskosGoatee wrote: Of course, I was asked to give my subjective opinion, so I did. The reason I don'toften give them in discussions like this is because I consider it useless, it's just people giving their subjective opinions without a real discussion.
Then instead of forging discord among a useless opinion-fest, try instead to push a more meaningful discussion. Constantly disagreeing with everyone doesn't help anything, it just contributes to the problem.
I'm not disagreeing with everyone's opinion about what are good and bad maps. I'm disagreeing with the fundamental notion that some people have that this is an objective rather than subjective thing.
A lot of the current issues in the metagame are down to the (zerg lead) community's obsession with gigantic maps, mainly to weaken terran early game. What we need is a shift back to medium sized maps with fewer attack paths. Oddly, the maps that cater to this playstyle best... are all Blizzard maps.
Maybe Blizzard understand their game better than TeamLiquid thinks?
On November 05 2012 00:18 SiskosGoatee wrote: As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map
But you're the only one that thinks we shouldn't try to add new maps. You're the only one who thinks nothing should be done.
Where am I saying that? I'd love to add new maps. I'm just saying that no matter what makes you add, people are going to remain dissatisfied. I'd love to add the maps I personally like, like everyone, and the maps I like are going to be disliked by other people, just as with everyone.
On November 05 2012 02:08 Evangelist wrote: A lot of the current issues in the metagame are down to the (zerg lead) community's obsession with gigantic maps, mainly to weaken terran early game. What we need is a shift back to medium sized maps with fewer attack paths. Oddly, the maps that cater to this playstyle best... are all Blizzard maps.
Maybe Blizzard understand their game better than TeamLiquid thinks?
Newer community maps aren't gigantic anymore. (well, DF maps at least not, and I don't think ESV or TPW go overboard with rush distances either)
The big problem is that due to the absence of rotation, only older and bigger maps are played - especially, CruX had a period during which they got Daybreak, Atlantis Spaceship, Metropolis and Whirlwind played - and newer, smaller maps aren't used.
I think more community participation would solve those kinds of metagame problems very very easily - but, unfortunately, the pool stays stale.
On November 05 2012 00:18 SiskosGoatee wrote: As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map
But you're the only one that thinks we shouldn't try to add new maps. You're the only one who thinks nothing should be done.
Where am I saying that? I'd love to add new maps. I'm just saying that no matter what makes you add, people are going to remain dissatisfied. I'd love to add the maps I personally like, like everyone, and the maps I like are going to be disliked by other people, just as with everyone.
An observation that makes no difference. This is not a reason to do nothing, it's just one more thing to keep in mind. This is why reasoned discussion is necessary, this is why the community is so important for this. We need to come up with some process that allows us to push maps that the largest number of people like. It's not as if every map will be half-loved and half-hated, there will be a consensus that can be reached. That's why discussion is needed.
On November 05 2012 00:18 SiskosGoatee wrote: As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map
But you're the only one that thinks we shouldn't try to add new maps. You're the only one who thinks nothing should be done.
Where am I saying that? I'd love to add new maps. I'm just saying that no matter what makes you add, people are going to remain dissatisfied. I'd love to add the maps I personally like, like everyone, and the maps I like are going to be disliked by other people, just as with everyone.
Oh ok. It's just that you give the exact opposite impression.
I realize I don't even know what you're arguing for. Reading again the thread, you started derailing it just to repeat your opinion from Timetwister's thread.
Could you say whether you agree with those affirmations ? Again, I would just like you to make your position clear, because so far you've been mostly disagreeing and you haven't really been saying anything. -The current pool isn't fine. -Community maps can make the game better. -The judges for new maps need to be professionals/mapmakers/the whole community. -Good/bad maps exist. -Mapmakers/professionals/the community can decide which maps are good and which maps are not. -There hasn't been a Blizzard map as good as most played community/Korean maps yet.
On November 05 2012 02:48 ArcticRaven wrote: Could you say whether you agree with those affirmations ? Again, I would just like you to make your position clear, because so far you've been mostly disagreeing and you haven't really been saying anything. -The current pool isn't fine.
I personally think the current map pool isn't fine, this is a subjective assesment of mine, nothing objective.
-Community maps can make the game better.
Maps made by any party have the capacty to make the game, subjectively, better, pending on what your assesment of better is.
-The judges for new maps need to be professionals/mapmakers/the whole community.
There are no professional mapmakers. There are a bunch of 'teams' and they claim that they are professional but they are not, they are just a group of people who make maps, very few of those end up in the tournament circuit, there is no empirical justification at the moment for the idea that they are better or worse than Blizzard. Though they claim they are.
I have no idea who the judges of new maps are supposed to be. That's why I feel the map pool should just be larger and people should be given more vetoes so everyone is happy. A 15 map pool with 7 vetos or something.
-Good/bad maps exist.
Nope, not in the objective sense.
-Mapmakers/professionals/the community can decide which maps are good and which maps are not.
Nope, see above, there are no professionals in this field at the moment, everyone is an amateur, no is is getting paid. Crux is the only team with some semblance of proffesionality going on. TPW and ESV are just hobbyists who like to make maps, their maps are currently not successful or used a lot.
-There hasn't been a Blizzard map as good as most played community/Korean maps yet.
Good is again subjective, however, in my personal opinion. Antiga Shipyard is far superior to Ohana so that serves as a counter example.
On November 05 2012 02:48 ArcticRaven wrote: Could you say whether you agree with those affirmations ? Again, I would just like you to make your position clear, because so far you've been mostly disagreeing and you haven't really been saying anything. -The current pool isn't fine.
I personally think the current map pool isn't fine, this is a subjective assesment of mine, nothing objective.
-The judges for new maps need to be professionals/mapmakers/the whole community.
There are no professional mapmakers. There are a bunch of 'teams' and they claim that they are professional but they are not, they are just a group of people who make maps, very few of those end up in the tournament circuit, there is no empirical justification at the moment for the idea that they are better or worse than Blizzard. Though they claim they are.
I have no idea who the judges of new maps are supposed to be. That's why I feel the map pool should just be larger and people should be given more vetoes so everyone is happy. A 15 map pool with 7 vetos or something.
-Mapmakers/professionals/the community can decide which maps are good and which maps are not.
Nope, see above, there are no professionals in this field at the moment, everyone is an amateur, no is is getting paid. Crux is the only team with some semblance of proffesionality going on. TPW and ESV are just hobbyists who like to make maps, their maps are currently not successful or used a lot.
-There hasn't been a Blizzard map as good as most played community/Korean maps yet.
Good is again subjective, however, in my personal opinion. Antiga Shipyard is far superior to Ohana so that serves as a counter example.
He isn't saying professional mapmakers, we know that technically they don't exist yet, he means professional players, mapmakers, and the community should each have a voice.
Anyway, all I'm getting from your posts is that you actually have no idea what to do, and instead seek to suggest that we also have no idea what to do. Whether a map is good is not purely subjective. It is to an extent, but I could easily make a handful of shitty maps that nobody would ever want to see in competitive play. Instead of poking holes in something that can be done, try to contribute something, and if you can't do that, just leave us be. You were never appointed to any position, you're not being forced into it.
On November 03 2012 03:40 SiskosGoatee wrote: Apart from that, it's your opinion that it's a badly designed map. This is the entire underlying point, that some people act like their opinions are facts. There's a reason GOMTV removed Ohana and kept Antiga and my hunch is that this is viewer numbers. Antiga has a certain inclination to generate 'memorable games' that people look vods up because the design lends itself to tense situations where both are highly mined out and have troubles securing a third, Ohana tends to create boring games that aren't memorable.
what is important is having a map rotation. while you might enjoy seeing antiga for the next 5 years of sc2, many others dont. it was pretty funny to see the comments in blizzard's blog post about the new season, every one of them being about wanting new maps.in sc2. the game is stagnated. you have general builds like ling infestor that come first before specific map strategies. having a map rotation atleast allows players some differentiation on how they play the match, ie the obvious differences in matches between daybreak and antiga.
now, if you have these blizzard-sponsored 'map contests', you end up having a small group of people with their own set of opinions, who are essentially controlling the map pool. which in itself is a retarded idea, because who says they are more qualified to do that over a mapper, a progamer, or an average joe in the community? an example, you look at the tlmc results where the judges picked korhol #1.
this is why most mappers want a continuously rotating map pool. so that players can constantly have new experiences in sc2, so that race strategies and player dominance can evolve with the ever changing map environment. this specifically is what had kept bw alive and entertaining for over a decade. some maps will be brilliant, some maps won't. you will never know until you give them the playtime exposure.
also personally speaking, you are a highly annoying poster. for the entire thread, you are just arguing semantics and 'opinions' and adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. all you are doing is replying to people and pissing them off with non-directional nonsense. you don't need 50 posts to tell people you like in your opinion antiga better than ohana.
-The judges for new maps need to be professionals/mapmakers/the whole community.
There are no professional mapmakers. There are a bunch of 'teams' and they claim that they are professional but they are not, they are just a group of people who make maps, very few of those end up in the tournament circuit, there is no empirical justification at the moment for the idea that they are better or worse than Blizzard. Though they claim they are.
I have no idea who the judges of new maps are supposed to be. That's why I feel the map pool should just be larger and people should be given more vetoes so everyone is happy. A 15 map pool with 7 vetos or something.
-Mapmakers/professionals/the community can decide which maps are good and which maps are not.
Nope, see above, there are no professionals in this field at the moment, everyone is an amateur, no is is getting paid. Crux is the only team with some semblance of proffesionality going on. TPW and ESV are just hobbyists who like to make maps, their maps are currently not successful or used a lot.
if you do not understand or know why these maps are not 'used' or 'successful' then i dont even know what you are doing in this thread.
On November 05 2012 02:48 ArcticRaven wrote: Could you say whether you agree with those affirmations ? Again, I would just like you to make your position clear, because so far you've been mostly disagreeing and you haven't really been saying anything. -The current pool isn't fine.
I personally think the current map pool isn't fine, this is a subjective assesment of mine, nothing objective.
-Community maps can make the game better.
Maps made by any party have the capacty to make the game, subjectively, better, pending on what your assesment of better is.
-The judges for new maps need to be professionals/mapmakers/the whole community.
There are no professional mapmakers. There are a bunch of 'teams' and they claim that they are professional but they are not, they are just a group of people who make maps, very few of those end up in the tournament circuit, there is no empirical justification at the moment for the idea that they are better or worse than Blizzard. Though they claim they are.
I have no idea who the judges of new maps are supposed to be. That's why I feel the map pool should just be larger and people should be given more vetoes so everyone is happy. A 15 map pool with 7 vetos or something.
-Good/bad maps exist.
Nope, not in the objective sense.
-Mapmakers/professionals/the community can decide which maps are good and which maps are not.
Nope, see above, there are no professionals in this field at the moment, everyone is an amateur, no is is getting paid. Crux is the only team with some semblance of proffesionality going on. TPW and ESV are just hobbyists who like to make maps, their maps are currently not successful or used a lot.
-There hasn't been a Blizzard map as good as most played community/Korean maps yet.
Good is again subjective, however, in my personal opinion. Antiga Shipyard is far superior to Ohana so that serves as a counter example.
He isn't saying professional mapmakers, we know that technically they don't exist yet, he means professional players, mapmakers, and the community should each have a voice.
Ah yes, I misread in that sense then.
Anyway, all I'm getting from your posts is that you actually have no idea what to do, and instead seek to suggest that we also have no idea what to do.
Oh, you have plenty ideas, I'm just quite sure most them have huge caveats in them and I'm highly sceptical they will work, there is a difference.
Instead of poking holes in something that can be done, try to contribute something, and if you can't do that, just leave us be. You were never appointed to any position, you're not being forced into it.
This is such silly mentality honestly:
- A: Hey, we got this cool idea of a propulsion that allows faster than light travel. - B: Yeah, that's nice and all, but here's the flaw in this idea. - A: Well, how would you travel faster than light then instea dof picking out our flaws? - B: You can't, Einstein showed that no object without a rest mass with a nonzero imaginary part can travel faster than light. - A: Well, if you have nothing to contribute, just go away. - B: I don't think you understand, you will never be able to travel faster than light! - A: Contribute on how to travel faster than light or gtfo!
I'm sorry, but pointing out why some things people want to do be done cannot be done is contributing to the discussion, the sad thing of this world is that the overwhelming majority of problems does not have a solution whatsoever.
The 'problem' in this case is that people are dissatisfied with the map pool. And you will never all be satisfied with it because each of you like different maps so there will always be maps in the map pool that a lot of people don't like, furthermore, some people actually don't like quick rotation and like to still be able to play on their old favourite maps and hate to see them gone. So yeah, whatever map pool you end up with, unless by cosmological coincidence, you're going to dislike a very large portion of them.
On November 05 2012 03:41 SiskosGoatee wrote: This is such silly mentality honestly:
- A: Hey, we got this cool idea of a propulsion that allows faster than light travel. - B: Yeah, that's nice and all, but here's the flaw in this idea. - A: Well, how would you travel faster than light then instea dof picking out our flaws? - B: You can't, Einstein showed that no object without a rest mass with a nonzero imaginary part can travel faster than light. - A: Well, if you have nothing to contribute, just go away. - B: I don't think you understand, you will never be able to travel faster than light! - A: Contribute on how to travel faster than light or gtfo!
I'm sorry, but pointing out why some things people want to do be done cannot be done is contributing to the discussion, the sad thing of this world is that the overwhelming majority of problems does not have a solution whatsoever.
I agree. That's not what this is though. Remember the Union thread? For the first couple of pages, you and a couple of others did that very thing, which is important. We need to be aware of potential problems so we can avoid them and work around them. But for the last several pages of that thread and the entirety of this one, you've said literally nothing that hasn't been said a dozen times. We're not stupid, we can read. Posting it 100 times just makes you a detriment and a distraction, a troll, if you want to go there(I suspect you have).
On November 05 2012 03:48 ArcticRaven wrote: I think I've finally understood what your problem is.
You think getting a less stale map pool is impossible because people disagree on things, right ?
Not stale isn't impossible, but making everyone happy is. And keep in mind that some people like a stale map pool. Blizzard has to try to please everyone. Including people in the lowest depths of bronze and most importantly people just starting multiplayer.
On November 05 2012 03:41 SiskosGoatee wrote: This is such silly mentality honestly:
- A: Hey, we got this cool idea of a propulsion that allows faster than light travel. - B: Yeah, that's nice and all, but here's the flaw in this idea. - A: Well, how would you travel faster than light then instea dof picking out our flaws? - B: You can't, Einstein showed that no object without a rest mass with a nonzero imaginary part can travel faster than light. - A: Well, if you have nothing to contribute, just go away. - B: I don't think you understand, you will never be able to travel faster than light! - A: Contribute on how to travel faster than light or gtfo!
I'm sorry, but pointing out why some things people want to do be done cannot be done is contributing to the discussion, the sad thing of this world is that the overwhelming majority of problems does not have a solution whatsoever.
I agree. That's not what this is though. Remember the Union thread? For the first couple of pages, you and a couple of others did that very thing, which is important. We need to be aware of potential problems so we can avoid them and work around them. But for the last several pages of that thread and the entirety of this one, you've said literally nothing that hasn't been said a dozen times. We're not stupid, we can read. Posting it 100 times just makes you a detriment and a distraction, a troll, if you want to go there(I suspect you have).
I'm pretty sure they haven't, because people continue to say things that I haven't said, such as that I supposedly think that balance is all that matters and fun isn't, which wasn't my point, my point was that different people have different ideas of what a fun map is and if people didn't get that, then yes, then I have to repeat it.
On November 05 2012 04:05 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm pretty sure they haven't, because people continue to say things that I haven't said, such as that I supposedly think that balance is all that matters and fun isn't, which wasn't my point, my point was that different people have different ideas of what a fun map is and if people didn't get that, then yes, then I have to repeat it.
On November 05 2012 00:18 SiskosGoatee wrote: As you can see, there is plenty of disagreement amongst all people what constitutes a good map
But you're the only one that thinks we shouldn't try to add new maps. You're the only one who thinks nothing should be done.
Where am I saying that? I'd love to add new maps. I'm just saying that no matter what makes you add, people are going to remain dissatisfied. I'd love to add the maps I personally like, like everyone, and the maps I like are going to be disliked by other people, just as with everyone.
An observation that makes no difference. This is not a reason to do nothing, it's just one more thing to keep in mind. This is why reasoned discussion is necessary, this is why the community is so important for this. We need to come up with some process that allows us to push maps that the largest number of people like. It's not as if every map will be half-loved and half-hated, there will be a consensus that can be reached. That's why discussion is needed.
On November 05 2012 03:48 ArcticRaven wrote: I think I've finally understood what your problem is.
You think getting a less stale map pool is impossible because people disagree on things, right ?
Not stale isn't impossible, but making everyone happy is. And keep in mind that some people like a stale map pool. Blizzard has to try to please everyone. Including people in the lowest depths of bronze and most importantly people just starting multiplayer.
Ok so you think we're idealists trying to make everyone happy ?
Right i see alot of talk about how we must do something, and the discussion really goes on what should be done. I have to bring a point forward. Are we in a position to do anything about the current map pools? We can discuss all we want about who who would be better at picking a map pool but i think that it is also time to discuss who CAN pick the map pool.
MLG is THE prime example of how powerless the community is with regards to selecting maps.
If we look at other other smaller tournements the tendency is the same. The map pools all use the same maps with GSL being the one exception. I talked about this already 3 months ago and it is largely still the same pool that was being used. It was in Diamonds Map pool creation thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=338532¤tpage=3#51 Personally i call that pool the "ladder six" through metropolis is getting phased out.
That was 3 months ago and already back then this pool was stagnated. Overall nothing have really changed. I would say this pool have been running for about 7 months now. Completely unchanged.
It is a problem for the mapmaking community that map deviation is at an all time low.It hinders the motivation to create maps in the first place when you know that noone gets their maps in. But i gotta admit i can't see where the quick solution should come from. GSL still does exchange maps regually, but somewhy noone seem to follow suit.
MLG is really is the biggest offender here. They had the same map pool unchanged for over half a year. And when they finally changed it they just added in the one map in the ladder six pool that they didn't use already.
And then there is Blizzard. While five of the ladder six pool still are in the ladder i have a tough time really blaming it on Blizzard. There is 2 reasons. First of all while people critize them for not adding community maps and taking in their own "trash" map, this is how they have always acted. They don't take in community map unless they have already been tried and tested by tournements, they have never done that. And the one time they did take in a GSL map that was sorta new, metropolis, it soon turned out to be one of the most broken map ever both in balance and in design. Heavy lag made metropolis have the douptful honor of being the second map ever to get removed from ladder mid-season. And here begs the question. Which community map outside of the standard pool is currently tested enough to be considered ladder worthy? Because tournements are not bringing in anything new. And even through Blizzard actually have added a new map of their own noone uses it.
The second reason i don't blame Blizzard is that HOTS is coming up. Coming up from WOW i can tell you one thing. This is the season where you can expect least to be done from Blizzard. All their reassources usually gets focused on the expansion and you can also see it in the map pool changes or lack of thereoff. Infact if you take a look at the seasons up until now it is easy to see a pattern. As we got closer to HOTS less and less maps got changed. Sure better overall map balance can be one reason but i think it also tells me that Blizzard have gradually moved their map team over to focus mostly on HOTS. This will probably also mean that once HOTS gets launched we will see Blizzard implementing their own maps in a pace we saw back in season 3. But as for right now it means we can't expect anything here.
I really think our best bet is to try and put some pressure on tournements MLG most of all. Their Winter seasson is about to start and season change seems to be the only time they are willing to do the changes to the map pool.
And i am going to cut it off here before this turns into another Novel... too late. Well nevermind.
No, pray tell me more, your position is quite well thought of and you consider a lot of things I haven't yet considered.
What I would like to add though is that if Blizzard can add their own maps that haven't been tournament hardened via internal testing, surely they can internally test community maps and add those then?
On November 05 2012 06:26 ArcticRaven wrote: Well, that's exactly what they're promising. They're gonna organuize a contest, see what comes up, test those internally and add the ones they like.
Now you know why everyone's happy
What if they come with a couple of maps that you consider terrible? I reckon that's going to happen because well, as I said, everyone considers different maps terrible.
On November 05 2012 06:28 EatThePath wrote: What kind of testing does Blizzard do lol? It doesn't really matter if a map has been played a few times, or even a few hundred times.
No one knows. My guess is that they just rule a map imbalanced if anyone can beat David Kim on it in any matchup.
Sumadin's totally right about MLG but I don't see how we can put any more pressure on MLG than Blizzard. Ohana/Cloud Kingdom were getting some pretty heavy exposure but it was ultimately Blizzard who truly inspired nearly every SC2 tournament to add Ohana and Cloud Kingdom when they were added to the ladder pool.
There needs to be a semi-automated system for submitting, testing, and approving maps on the Blizzard SC2 ladder. Arbitrary contests are not enough - though TLMC was of course a great thing. It is extremely difficult to implement a community map contest such as TLMC as often as we actually need new ladder maps - and I do not think swapping 2 - 3 maps at a time like we did with TLMC is ideal, though it was honestly needed at the time.Even if only 1 map were switched out per season, it is unlikely that every map that makes it in will end up as balanced in every matchup, but considering how many tournaments are still playing on Metropolis, I don't see how it could be much worse if a "bad" map leaks through once in awhile, it's better than having zero maps leak through at all to the Blizzard ladder now.
Sumadin always has pretty baller posts in the map forums.
I don't think MLG is an example of how the community is powerless. It's the opposite. Thousands of people tune in to watch MLG. So they go with what works. If it wasn't working they'd be much more comfortable trying new things to try and make it work. They're getting tons of mileage out of Koreans visiting MLGs, and everyone eats it up. The wider SC2 audience isn't discerning enough to demand new maps. As long as they're watching good games the pressure's off.
Luckily Blizzard seems to realize that map rotation could make it even better.
On November 05 2012 06:26 ArcticRaven wrote: Well, that's exactly what they're promising. They're gonna organuize a contest, see what comes up, test those internally and add the ones they like.
Now you know why everyone's happy
What if they come with a couple of maps that you consider terrible? I reckon that's going to happen because well, as I said, everyone considers different maps terrible.
As much as this may shock you, I'm the kind of guy that will just accept other people's judgements sometimes. Like mostly everyone. And I think I'll trust Blizzard when it comes to choosing between community maps.
On November 04 2012 22:51 Semmo wrote: Here's my idea: Every Ladder Season, Blizzard holds a map competition for a chance to get into the ladder. Also, every ladder season, 1-2 unpopular maps are removed. Since it's only addition of 1 map per season, people can choose to veto it, so it won't hurt that many people.
Do the same with 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 etc. = people motivated to map
100% agree with this. Its a simple solution to a complicated problem. Don't like one of the new maps? thats what vetos are for. Really not sure why they wouldn't do something like this.
On November 04 2012 22:51 Semmo wrote: Here's my idea: Every Ladder Season, Blizzard holds a map competition for a chance to get into the ladder. Also, every ladder season, 1-2 unpopular maps are removed. Since it's only addition of 1 map per season, people can choose to veto it, so it won't hurt that many people.
Do the same with 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 etc. = people motivated to map
100% agree with this. Its a simple solution to a complicated problem. Don't like one of the new maps? thats what vetos are for. Really not sure why they wouldn't do something like this.
The reason is that it's not that simple. Do you create a custom submission feature for battle.net to limit it to one submission per account? What if people buy multiple accounts? Etc. But let's say that works.
How many maps are you going to get? Omfg, a zillion. And how many of those are absolute garbage from kiddies? Not that that's a bad thing but you'll have to sort through them all.
Who's in charge of this? How many people do they have to do the sifting? How can you trust they know how to judge properly for sifting? Then when you have some manageable number of legitimate candidates, how do you choose? Do you do testing? If you find a glitch or mistake in one of the maps, do you toss it and go to 2nd place or do you try to contact the mapmaker and have them fix it? Or do you (as Blizzard) fix it yourself in your own taste?
Not that any of this is a real "problem"; that system would still work fine. It's not exactly "simple" though just because of the scale of the project. It's actually rather a nightmarish undertaking.
And if people publicize their submission and a cool map gets a lot of public support, but then it doesn't get picked... another stupid little PR snag. So many things that make it unattractive compared to ultimate fiat non-community game design.
Though in principle of course it's a great idea. ^^
On November 05 2012 06:11 Sumadin wrote: It is a problem for the mapmaking community that map deviation is at an all time low.It hinders the motivation to create maps in the first place when you know that noone gets their maps in. But i gotta admit i can't see where the quick solution should come from. GSL still does exchange maps regually, but somewhy noone seem to follow suit.
This is indeed a very big problem. Many mapmakers have gone inactive or semi-inactive, no motivation to make maps, the scene doesn't improve nearly as much as it could.
And organizing TLMC really isn't that hard. I mean it's like a MotM just with TL pro coverage skills with nice texts and graphics blabla and more people for testing etc. But I'm certain that it's very easy to motivate people to do this stuff when you are sure that at the end the winning maps will go to ladder.
On November 05 2012 06:11 Sumadin wrote: It is a problem for the mapmaking community that map deviation is at an all time low.It hinders the motivation to create maps in the first place when you know that noone gets their maps in. But i gotta admit i can't see where the quick solution should come from. GSL still does exchange maps regually, but somewhy noone seem to follow suit.
This is indeed a very big problem. Many mapmakers have gone inactive or semi-inactive, no motivation to make maps, the scene doesn't improve nearly as much as it could.
And organizing TLMC really isn't that hard. I mean it's like a MotM just with TL pro coverage skills with nice texts and graphics blabla and more people for testing etc. But I'm certain that it's very easy to motivate people to do this stuff when you are sure that at the end the winning maps will go to ladder.
Well i said this before but the first TLMC was dreadfully inefficiant. There was a huge voting process, and afterwards it took 2 seasons for Blizzard to implement it. This alone means that the best we can ever hope for is for it to be an annual event.
But the biggest problem was really the outcome. What did we get? 2 maps was added to the general tournement pool(Cloud kingdom and Ohana) and while Blizzard did pick a third (Korhal compound), general rejection by tournements and some imbalance ment that Blizzard soon rejected it again.
If another TLMC were to happen i think they would need to raise the bar alot. Either they would need to streamline the contest so that it happens faster or they need to think of a way for more of the maps to make it out in the tournements. I don't think it would be far off to try and demand that all top 5 gets some tournement coverage. Unless we want the annual map rotation for tournements to be 2 maps only(It is getting close to that...)
But how to archieve that? The only way i could think off was to implement "map contracts" which would basicly be a deal that says X tournement promises to include one of the final maps at least once. Could be sorted like this:
Winner: Ladder spot Second place: WCS 2013 Third: GSL Fourth: MLG(Yea right :| ) Fifth: I don't know, Dreamhack?
Now this would just be for say one season and afterwards they would be free to go for the Winner map. This would be a way to try and include some deviation between the tournement pools. But lets be honest good luck getting the tournements to agree on that.
On November 05 2012 06:11 Sumadin wrote: It is a problem for the mapmaking community that map deviation is at an all time low.It hinders the motivation to create maps in the first place when you know that noone gets their maps in. But i gotta admit i can't see where the quick solution should come from. GSL still does exchange maps regually, but somewhy noone seem to follow suit.
This is indeed a very big problem. Many mapmakers have gone inactive or semi-inactive, no motivation to make maps, the scene doesn't improve nearly as much as it could.
And organizing TLMC really isn't that hard. I mean it's like a MotM just with TL pro coverage skills with nice texts and graphics blabla and more people for testing etc. But I'm certain that it's very easy to motivate people to do this stuff when you are sure that at the end the winning maps will go to ladder.
As far as I am concerned, there is no point in running anything the scale of TLMC without a guarantee that the maps are going to get playtime or considered for ladder use. Without that, there is nothing separating it from something like MotM which already does a good job at promoting community maps (what happened to that lately btw t.t)
On November 05 2012 06:11 Sumadin wrote: It is a problem for the mapmaking community that map deviation is at an all time low.It hinders the motivation to create maps in the first place when you know that noone gets their maps in. But i gotta admit i can't see where the quick solution should come from. GSL still does exchange maps regually, but somewhy noone seem to follow suit.
This is indeed a very big problem. Many mapmakers have gone inactive or semi-inactive, no motivation to make maps, the scene doesn't improve nearly as much as it could.
And organizing TLMC really isn't that hard. I mean it's like a MotM just with TL pro coverage skills with nice texts and graphics blabla and more people for testing etc. But I'm certain that it's very easy to motivate people to do this stuff when you are sure that at the end the winning maps will go to ladder.
Well i said this before but the first TLMC was dreadfully inefficiant. There was a huge voting process, and afterwards it took 2 seasons for Blizzard to implement it. This alone means that the best we can ever hope for is for it to be an annual event.
But the biggest problem was really the outcome. What did we get? 2 maps was added to the general tournement pool(Cloud kingdom and Ohana) and while Blizzard did pick a third (Korhal compound), general rejection by tournements and some imbalance ment that Blizzard soon rejected it again.
If another TLMC were to happen i think they would need to raise the bar alot. Either they would need to streamline the contest so that it happens faster or they need to think of a way for more of the maps to make it out in the tournements. I don't think it would be far off to try and demand that all top 5 gets some tournement coverage. Unless we want the annual map rotation for tournements to be 2 maps only(It is getting close to that...)
Well let me elaborate on the TLMC process a bit. the map contest potion allocated around 1 month for submissions + 2~ weeks or so. The intention was to have the TLopen shortly afterwards but conflicting tournament schedules and busy staff schedules meant that that was delayed. When Blizzard finally got around to getting maps into the ladder (thx christmas/new year) Ohana had to be nearly completely reworked to meet quality standards which is why that was so delayed. Cloud/KC were introduced the first possible season upon being decided. Also, the voting process was something that Blizzard wanted (community input on the maps).
On November 05 2012 21:10 Plexa wrote: As far as I am concerned, there is no point in running anything the scale of TLMC without a guarantee that the maps are going to get playtime or considered for ladder use. Without that, there is nothing separating it from something like MotM which already does a good job at promoting community maps (what happened to that lately btw t.t)
The big problem with MotM is that we don't have the people or resources to run a tournament on a monthly basis. When we tried to run MotM without the tournament, there was loud complaints, which is understandable. The biggest motivation for mapmakers is to see games being played on their maps. Without that, MotM loses importance.
On November 05 2012 21:10 Plexa wrote: As far as I am concerned, there is no point in running anything the scale of TLMC without a guarantee that the maps are going to get playtime or considered for ladder use. Without that, there is nothing separating it from something like MotM which already does a good job at promoting community maps (what happened to that lately btw t.t)
The big problem with MotM is that we don't have the people or resources to run a tournament on a monthly basis. When we tried to run MotM without the tournament, there was loud complaints, which is understandable. The biggest motivation for mapmakers is to see games being played on their maps. Without that, MotM loses importance.
Sure but there is value in having a simple mapping competition. Sure it isn't exactly what map makers want, but simply having some tournament where people can participate and have their maps ranked is good for the growth of newer to mid range mappers. There's definitely value is raising the overall standard of maps imo, and thats an important thing for the community moving forward. Although I do agree that the elite mappers and amazing community maps need better notoriety and greater play time. And of course, we're always looking for ways to facilitate that in a sensible kind of way.
And how do you raise the standard of maps if they're not played in a tournament ? Khoral Compound had won a Motm 6 months prior to winning a spot in the ladder but still it looked like judges discovered its flaws when it was played in the ladder. (fyi judges voted it 1st while the community voted it last at the TLMC)
My opinion about the ladder is Blizzard doesn't want casual players (even casual master players) to flee because of new maps they don't know. When you play a few games here and there and you see maps that you don't know you get beaten hard. If many maps change you get beaten a lot and you stop playing. The only way for Blizzard to add in maps is to advertise about it. So players start playing again because of novelty.
btw when I see posts talking about 4 gates I really wonder if mappers still play the game. I play protoss and I can't remember the last time I saw a 4 gate, even in tournaments. You guys need to start playing the game again to keep up to date.
On November 05 2012 23:40 chuky500 wrote: And how do you raise the standard of maps if they're not played in a tournament ? Khoral Compound had won a Motm 6 months prior to winning a spot in the ladder but still it looked like judges discovered its flaws when it was played in the ladder. (fyi judges voted it 1st while the community voted it last at the TLMC)
My opinion about the ladder is Blizzard doesn't want casual players (even casual master players) to flee because of new maps they don't know. When you play a few games here and there and you see maps that you don't know you get beaten hard. If many maps change you get beaten a lot and you stop playing. The only way for Blizzard to add in maps is to advertise about it. So players start playing again because of novelty.
btw when I see posts talking about 4 gates I really wonder if mappers still play the game. I play protoss and I can't remember the last time I saw a 4 gate, even in tournaments. You guys need to start playing the game again to keep up to date.
On November 05 2012 23:40 chuky500 wrote: And how do you raise the standard of maps if they're not played in a tournament ? Khoral Compound had won a Motm 6 months prior to winning a spot in the ladder but still it looked like judges discovered its flaws when it was played in the ladder. (fyi judges voted it 1st while the community voted it last at the TLMC)
My opinion about the ladder is Blizzard doesn't want casual players (even casual master players) to flee because of new maps they don't know. When you play a few games here and there and you see maps that you don't know you get beaten hard. If many maps change you get beaten a lot and you stop playing. The only way for Blizzard to add in maps is to advertise about it. So players start playing again because of novelty.
btw when I see posts talking about 4 gates I really wonder if mappers still play the game. I play protoss and I can't remember the last time I saw a 4 gate, even in tournaments. You guys need to start playing the game again to keep up to date.
If there is one thing casual gamers hate, its the lack of new things. So not rotating the map pool like crazy is rather pushing casuals away from laddering. A constant map pool helps those one trick ponys though that get high by playing one strategy. I am just curious if they will switch it up with HotS. I think letting the community do the mapping work and deciding what comes and goes on ladder saves them alot of work and if it doesn't work out they can go back to the old system. Might get complicated though if at the end there are just Zerg favored maps left over.
But right now I rather expect things to get worse. Or they go super lazy and just copy the gsl map pool.
I think they should remove the old maps as fast as possible. It's stupid that your votes have to go to completely outdated maps like tal'darim altar or really strange maps like condemned ridge. Also it's just stupid they don't fix their current map pool. Although they might not like adding depots (until hots comes out-.-) they could atleast fix the spawn positions on maps like antiga shipyard or entombed valley, because some spawns are just so stupid to play as a Zerg it's hard to decide which of the unbalanced maps should be voted first... (for example antiga shipyard close spawns vs a terran mass droping with siegetank support from his 3rd is such a joke...)
The TLMC was a huge success anyway, compared to anything else that's ever happened. The way KC was changed for the ladder edition rather ruined its viability. Still, 2/3 maps used to this day in tournaments worldwide... seems like a good outcome. Is anyone seriously opposed to a repeat?
The thing about MotM without games is that it doesn't really add anything to what mapmakers already do in the forum, which is critique each others' maps and try to make cool new stuff. Getting ranked arbitrarily by a few people doesn't really matter to me, personally, but the chance that I could see some games on a map I made is pretty exciting. However, I think most mapmakers are motivated by the pursuit of better maps, not personal glory. So, lack of map rotation is really the thing that is most discouraging. But there are new mapmakers posting every few days, so I don't think we need to worry about the mapmaking scene so much as the institutions for integrating community maps. (Which seem to be ever so gradually coming into being.)
On November 05 2012 06:11 Sumadin wrote: It is a problem for the mapmaking community that map deviation is at an all time low.It hinders the motivation to create maps in the first place when you know that noone gets their maps in. But i gotta admit i can't see where the quick solution should come from. GSL still does exchange maps regually, but somewhy noone seem to follow suit.
This is indeed a very big problem. Many mapmakers have gone inactive or semi-inactive, no motivation to make maps, the scene doesn't improve nearly as much as it could.
And organizing TLMC really isn't that hard. I mean it's like a MotM just with TL pro coverage skills with nice texts and graphics blabla and more people for testing etc. But I'm certain that it's very easy to motivate people to do this stuff when you are sure that at the end the winning maps will go to ladder.
Basically this.
I use to sit in the sc2 map editor all the time just messing around with everything. Now, at most I log into the editor, play around for 5 minutes, then close it again because it doesn't feel worth it. It's bad because I'll fiddle around with sketches in a notebook on new map designs when I'm bored, but I have no actual motivation to sit down in the editor and create it. Trying to get a map recognized is just about impossible now a day that I don't even log on skype anymore. The major reason I'd use Skype was to talk maps with everybody in the mapping channel, but now since it's infested with Icetoad and Ragoo spamming DoTA garbage that I don't give a rats ass anymore and hence don't log in much at all anymore. (<3)
Let's face it, if you don't run a tournament with a big cash prize then nobody besides the people who visit the sc2 mapping thread actually care for the tournament. We can bitch and complain all we want and nothing is going to happen. The only two ways to get people to actually care about new maps is to get a big name tournament to host a map contest (TL, IPL, MLG, etc) or for the mappers themselves to host a tournament with a giant prize pool. Well, seeing how big name tournaments don't host map contests anymore that is out of the question. Also, I highly doubt someone on the mapping community is going to run a $5,000 map tournament, but if they could do that on a quarterly basis then maybe more maps would get more recognition.
I'm pretty sure Plexa was the one who said most of the community takes this mapper forum as a joke and seeing how he's one of the only admins who care, seeing how very few pro players care and seeing how almost any map related thread that gets into the sc2 general forum doesn't get much replies from non-mappers I think proves it. Until a mapping contest from a big name tournament shows up it's completely a giant waste to sit down and create maps.
I know I've lost Hope. I'm pretty sure a lot of mappers have, hence why a majority of the ones who were map making since beta have gone inactive.
If blizzard was to take one thing from KeSPA, I'm not entirely sure but wasn't their map pool CONSTANTLY updated after every season or two? Tal'Darim Altar has been around far too long by anyone's standards.
On November 06 2012 06:12 Golbat wrote: If blizzard was to take one thing from KeSPA, I'm not entirely sure but wasn't their map pool CONSTANTLY updated after every season or two? Tal'Darim Altar has been around far too long by anyone's standards.
Well as previosly stated this is the time where we should expect the least attention from Blizzard on the main game, just before an expansion. Have been the standard procedure in WOW too for almost 5 years.
On November 05 2012 06:11 Sumadin wrote: It is a problem for the mapmaking community that map deviation is at an all time low.It hinders the motivation to create maps in the first place when you know that noone gets their maps in. But i gotta admit i can't see where the quick solution should come from. GSL still does exchange maps regually, but somewhy noone seem to follow suit.
This is indeed a very big problem. Many mapmakers have gone inactive or semi-inactive, no motivation to make maps, the scene doesn't improve nearly as much as it could.
And organizing TLMC really isn't that hard. I mean it's like a MotM just with TL pro coverage skills with nice texts and graphics blabla and more people for testing etc. But I'm certain that it's very easy to motivate people to do this stuff when you are sure that at the end the winning maps will go to ladder.
Basically this.
I use to sit in the sc2 map editor all the time just messing around with everything. Now, at most I log into the editor, play around for 5 minutes, then close it again because it doesn't feel worth it. It's bad because I'll fiddle around with sketches in a notebook on new map designs when I'm bored, but I have no actual motivation to sit down in the editor and create it. Trying to get a map recognized is just about impossible now a day that I don't even log on skype anymore. The major reason I'd use Skype was to talk maps with everybody in the mapping channel, but now since it's infested with Icetoad and Ragoo spamming DoTA garbage that I don't give a rats ass anymore and hence don't log in much at all anymore. (<3)
Let's face it, if you don't run a tournament with a big cash prize then nobody besides the people who visit the sc2 mapping thread actually care for the tournament. We can bitch and complain all we want and nothing is going to happen. The only two ways to get people to actually care about new maps is to get a big name tournament to host a map contest (TL, IPL, MLG, etc) or for the mappers themselves to host a tournament with a giant prize pool. Well, seeing how big name tournaments don't host map contests anymore that is out of the question. Also, I highly doubt someone on the mapping community is going to run a $5,000 map tournament, but if they could do that on a quarterly basis then maybe more maps would get more recognition.
I'm pretty sure Plexa was the one who said most of the community takes this mapper forum as a joke and seeing how he's one of the only admins who care, seeing how very few pro players care and seeing how almost any map related thread that gets into the sc2 general forum doesn't get much replies from non-mappers I think proves it. Until a mapping contest from a big name tournament shows up it's completely a giant waste to sit down and create maps.
I know I've lost Hope. I'm pretty sure a lot of mappers have, hence why a majority of the ones who were map making since beta have gone inactive.
I never got this recognition stuff and if this is what you're after you won't get it. I'm sorry, just as as only the top few can get recognition as a player, so as a mapmaker. Do you play this game to become famous at it or because you enjoy it? The tournament scene will never be able to sustain letting random people on this forum gaining recognition, just as random people on the SC2strategy forum won't ever get recognition as a player.
It's like that sad story of that platinum league player to go to Korea to become a pro honestly. If you have no interest in making maps because you're not getting recognition rather than the creative joy of mapping itself then I guess it's not for you. It's like doing a job you don't like because it pays more.
I totally get where Sidian is coming from. There are no opportunities for map makers. Without opportunity there's nothing to strive for and very little reason to mess around. No tournament is willing to look at new maps so theres basically no reason to map except to practice.
Basically, the problem with map making is that the map making 'skill ceiling' if you will isn't that high, if you're good, say Crux level (analogue to a pro player), you aren't a bazillion times better than your average decent amateur (say a random master league player). If I go up against a pro I will get smashed. This doesn't exist so clearly in mapmaking meaning that it's hard for the best mapmakers (doesn't help that this is subjective) to differentiate themselves.
So even if you are the best and you put your foot down and say 'Yo, you can only use my maps if you pay me raw cold cash', tournament organizers will just be like 'Hmmkay, let's go to the second best then, people will hardly notice the difference.' whereas if you're Stephano you can basically call up Mr. Chae and say 'Yo bitch, gimme a GSL code S seed' and they will kick a random KeSPA player they promised it to first out just to get Stephano into it because they know everyone wants to see that.
But in any case, if you do something like mapmaking to get recogition then there's not a lot of hobbies out there for you I'm afraid, very few people get recognition in any thing.
I totally get where Sidian is coming from. There are no opportunities for map makers. Without opportunity there's nothing to strive for and very little reason to mess around. No tournament is willing to look at new maps so theres basically no reason to map except to practice.
Yes.
It's crazy that commentators get all the recognition when it comes to non-players in the SC2 scene (while getting paid), but the job of a good dedicated observer or a good mapmaker (or even a good production crew, although they also get paid ) is arguably harder. Not harder in terms of raw hours or amount of travel necessary, but difficulty-wise. Having a little game knowledge and being comfortable talking in front of a camera is not as hard as not missing anything while observing, while also catching most/all of the little things that happen in a game that a mediocre observer or caster who is observing would miss. Or balancing a map for all matchups while still bringing something fresh and interesting to the table and making it appealing to look at. And making it fun to play.
Not here to bash casters at all, as they are very necessary and the best ones are quite talented, but it's messed up everyone cares so much about them and not the other important people behind the scenes.
So I see where Sidian is coming from as well. Unless you still have a great love for the game and the map creation process (which some of us are fortunate enough to still have that fire - hopefully we don't burn out as well), there's no reason to keep mapping.
Not recognition for the sake of being famous, recognition so that they'll actually use the good maps.
It doesn't have to be about fame, or money, or enjoying it. Using better and newer maps is basically in everyone's best interest, so of course it's something I want to be happening. Even for someone who does enjoy mapmaking, that doesn't make this any less important.
I totally get where Sidian is coming from. There are no opportunities for map makers. Without opportunity there's nothing to strive for and very little reason to mess around. No tournament is willing to look at new maps so theres basically no reason to map except to practice.
Yes.
It's crazy that commentators get all the recognition when it comes to non-players in the SC2 scene (while getting paid),
Yeah, I also think that commentators get more than players sometimes is pretty darn silly.
but the job of a good dedicated observer or a good mapmaker (or even a good production crew, although they also get paid ) is arguably harder.
Harder in what way? Certainly not physically, commentators do undergo vocal training to not wear their voice out. Tasteless is a good example of someone who did it far too late, starting with that, and look what happened to his voice, it's not smoking like some people claim. It's what happens to your voice when you shout improperly, it's actually destructive to your body and vocal apparatus.
Not harder in terms of raw hours or amount of travel necessary, but difficulty-wise. Having a little game knowledge and being comfortable talking in front of a camera is not as hard as not missing anything while observing, while also catching most/all of the little things that happen in a game that a mediocre observer or caster who is observing would miss. Or balancing a map for all matchups while still bringing something fresh and interesting to the table and making it appealing to look at. And making it fun to play.
Well, bad commentators also don't earn that much, all the really good guys like Artosis, Apollo, Day[9], Tasteless, they play the game at quite a high level. I do wonder how much Moletrap gets though for someone who gets that much flack and often rightfully so.
So I see where Sidian is coming from as well. Unless you still have a great love for the game and the map creation process (which some of us are fortunate enough to still have that fire - hopefully we don't burn out as well), there's no reason to keep mapping.
There's no reason to keep commentating either, most commentators don't 'make it' and tournaments aren't actively trying to rotate commentators either. There are some mapmakers out there who did make it and everyone knows who LS or JackyPrime are.
On November 09 2012 11:28 Gfire wrote: Not recognition for the sake of being famous, recognition so that they'll actually use the good maps.
Which the people here are making I'm sure...?
It doesn't have to be about fame, or money, or enjoying it. Using better and newer maps is basically in everyone's best interest, so of course it's something I want to be happening. Even for someone who does enjoy mapmaking, that doesn't make this any less important.
I am quite sure this is not what Sidian was speaking about, most definitely it was about personal recognition and seeing your maps being used in tournaments, it's just not going to happen, even if they rotated more quickly, there is quite a high amount of aspiring mapmakers out there. I mean, basically all the tournament maps at this point have been made by either:
- Jacky - LS - Winpark - EastWindy (only one if I recall) - Superouman (only one) - IronManSC (only one, two if you count Khaydaria) - Blizzard
That's 6 people, last 3 of whom only have arguably one map in tournament circles. One might argue that the only mapmakers who ever 'made it' are Jacky, LS and Winpark. There's another person called Attax on Crux I believe but I never saw any map he or she made featured in any tournaments (might have to do with bizarre things like lowground main, highground natural)
Let's say tournaments rotate more quickly and we can get that number from 3 to 6. I'm sorry, but the majority of people are still not going to get recognition. Life's a bitch.
Majority of people will just never get recognition for their work. I eat bread every day, I have no idea who made it, I never sent that person a thank you letter for all that nice bread.
On November 09 2012 11:04 SiskosGoatee wrote: Or because you like to make maps?
Basically, the problem with map making is that the map making 'skill ceiling' if you will isn't that high, if you're good, say Crux level (analogue to a pro player), you aren't a bazillion times better than your average decent amateur (say a random master league player). If I go up against a pro I will get smashed. This doesn't exist so clearly in mapmaking meaning that it's hard for the best mapmakers (doesn't help that this is subjective) to differentiate themselves.
So even if you are the best and you put your foot down and say 'Yo, you can only use my maps if you pay me raw cold cash', tournament organizers will just be like 'Hmmkay, let's go to the second best then, people will hardly notice the difference.' whereas if you're Stephano you can basically call up Mr. Chae and say 'Yo bitch, gimme a GSL code S seed' and they will kick a random KeSPA player they promised it to first out just to get Stephano into it because they know everyone wants to see that.
But in any case, if you do something like mapmaking to get recogition then there's not a lot of hobbies out there for you I'm afraid, very few people get recognition in any thing.
How does one motivate themselves to continue to map when they have already hit the ceiling of map making? Sidian has had one of his maps played in IPL - that's a pretty significant accomplishment. How does superouman stay motivated when his map Cloud Kingdom is arguably the map of 2012? If there is no purpose, then there can't be a sustainable top tier of mapping. I'll draw an analogy to speed running. Aside from some fame for having a speed running record, there isn't much to strive for once you've reached the ceiling (i.e. hold multiple records). Recently-ish this has started to change with various charity-driven events give more reasons to stay involved and even more recently speed-running 'tournaments' have started to come about. At the moment, there isn't that kind of infrastructure for mapping. There used to be, with regular MotM with tournaments as well as IPL/TLMC picking up maps (and NASL too).
Crux are no better (and in many cases, worse) than the best mappers in our community. The defining difference between the two is that Crux have opportunity to get their work out while we dont. Having security in the maps being used in a regular prestigious tournament like GSL is a huge deal. Indeed, if we don't do something about their monopoly on the map making scene then we'll probably end up with a SC1 type situation. How do we solve this? I have nooo idea. With a lack of continuous foreign tournaments (that are important, sorry NASL) and reluctant cooperation between major leagues we're kinda stuck between a rock and blizzard. In my opinion, the only way to create meaningful change in the map pool for non-koreans is via a change in the ladder map pool. Which is an enormously difficult procedure (for reasons that I'm not willing to go into right now, but you should get the picture more or less).
I guess I haven't exactly addressed your point, but perhaps you can still some level of a meaningful response from this.
There's no reason to keep commentating either, most commentators don't 'make it' and tournaments aren't actively trying to rotate commentators either. There are some mapmakers out there who did make it and everyone knows who LS or JackyPrime are.
They do still have something to shoot for and/or aspire to, no? With the way non-Korean map making is, the map community just doesn't have that.
It's not so much personal fame, but more so that if you spend hours, days, weeks creating a map, it would be nice if there was a way to get someplace to actually use your map, or worst case take a look at it. When you spend days making a map only to post it on TL and get at most 20 replies and then it's never seen or heard of again, really makes creating maps not worth it.
Heck, I can speak from personal experience. I won the IPL map contest, they used my map through Team Arena Challenge 2 and also used it in some of their earlier fight clubs. The Playhem daily tournaments ended up picking it up for months after that, it ended up getting well over 3k+ games played on it. Funny part though, I guarantee you 99% of the players who played on the map had no clue I created it. I'll take this a step farther and say I bet you have no clue what map I'm even talking about. I also bet a majority of the people who read my reply will have no clue what map I'm talking about. Do I care? Absolutely not. I'm just happy that a major tournament took the chance to bring in some new maps to at least test them out.
To me, it's ridiculous that there are all these brand new maps getting posted constantly and instead we're still stuck with TDA and Shakuras in map pools. Also, before you say crap like Jacky, LS and Winpark are the only mappers who ever "made it" you should also realize that if GSL didn't take a chance with them and playtest their maps they would just be random mapper #7321.
Maybe it's about time IPL or MLG to step it up and try to bring something new to the table.
edit:
It appears Plexa sucked the thoughts out of my head completely. ^5.
On November 09 2012 11:04 SiskosGoatee wrote: Or because you like to make maps?
Basically, the problem with map making is that the map making 'skill ceiling' if you will isn't that high, if you're good, say Crux level (analogue to a pro player), you aren't a bazillion times better than your average decent amateur (say a random master league player). If I go up against a pro I will get smashed. This doesn't exist so clearly in mapmaking meaning that it's hard for the best mapmakers (doesn't help that this is subjective) to differentiate themselves.
So even if you are the best and you put your foot down and say 'Yo, you can only use my maps if you pay me raw cold cash', tournament organizers will just be like 'Hmmkay, let's go to the second best then, people will hardly notice the difference.' whereas if you're Stephano you can basically call up Mr. Chae and say 'Yo bitch, gimme a GSL code S seed' and they will kick a random KeSPA player they promised it to first out just to get Stephano into it because they know everyone wants to see that.
But in any case, if you do something like mapmaking to get recogition then there's not a lot of hobbies out there for you I'm afraid, very few people get recognition in any thing.
How does one motivate themselves to continue to map when they have already hit the ceiling of map making?
It's fun to do? I've honestly hit my skill plateau in SC2 a year back already. However the game is fun to play nonetheless. I'm not aspiring to become better at it. I'm just enjoying myself. Same with the galaxy editor. I don't think I'll ever get a lot better at making maps or getting better aesthetics out of it.
Sidian has had one of his maps played in IPL - that's a pretty significant accomplishment. How does superouman stay motivated when his map Cloud Kingdom is arguably the map of 2012? If there is no purpose, then there can't be a sustainable top tier of mapping. I'll draw an analogy to speed running. Aside from some fame for having a speed running record, there isn't much to strive for once you've reached the ceiling (i.e. hold multiple records).
If you do something for the sake of improvement, no, not really, if you make maps because you like doing it, then yes.
Also, that's not what I meant with low skill ceiling, I meant that the difference between a first tier mapper and a second tier mapper isn't as great as that of a first tier player and a second tier player.
Crux are no better (and in many cases, worse) than the best mappers in our community.
This is the subjective difference of opinion I was talking about earlier. There is a marked difference in design philosophy when it comes to Korean maps and foreign maps. Is either 'better'? I wouldn't know that, what I do know is that I personally like Crux maps more and that the GSL removed Ohana which to me exemplifies the ESV mapping philosophy in favour of a Crux map. Why? While we can't know for certain, I'm going to guess that Ohana had low viewer numbers to which I'm not surprised because the map just doesn't lend itself very well to exciting back and forth games.
Basically, what Crux likes is:
- Circle syndrome - hard to defend bases - large maps with a long rush distance - a lot of open spaces - lots of airspace for drops and air harass - a lot of different attack paths
Which seems to be what the foreign mapmaking community dislikes for a large portion. Which is again, all pretty subjective, I'm not going to call either better, I'm just going to say that in my own personal opinion, the only foreigner map I ever really liked was Cloud Kingdom and I think Crux maps are much better, but again, this is my own opinion.
The defining difference between the two is that Crux have opportunity to get their work out while we dont. Having security in the maps being used in a regular prestigious tournament like GSL is a huge deal. Indeed, if we don't do something about their monopoly on the map making scene then we'll probably end up with a SC1 type situation. How do we solve this? I have nooo idea. With a lack of continuous foreign tournaments (that are important, sorry NASL) and reluctant cooperation between major leagues we're kinda stuck between a rock and blizzard. In my opinion, the only way to create meaningful change in the map pool for non-koreans is via a change in the ladder map pool. Which is an enormously difficult procedure (for reasons that I'm not willing to go into right now, but you should get the picture more or less).
In part, yes, but I also think GSL simply likes Crux style maps more because they have the capacity to generate more 'back and fourth games' that are exciting to watch. The foreign mapmaking scene in its quest for 'make forge FE possible' and 'give an easy enough to defend third' and 'a long rush distance is bad for Terran' has basically ended up with very dull maps where not a lot is happening.
I guess I haven't exactly addressed your point, but perhaps you can still some level of a meaningful response from this.
I actually don't even mind that much, I think the discussion in itself is quite interesting, largely because I find myself disagreeing with nearly all of you guys.
There's no reason to keep commentating either, most commentators don't 'make it' and tournaments aren't actively trying to rotate commentators either. There are some mapmakers out there who did make it and everyone knows who LS or JackyPrime are.
They do still have something to shoot for and/or aspire to, no? With the way non-Korean map making is, the map community just doesn't have that.
I don't think they realistically do any more than mappers. There are actually quite a lot of people out there with a youtube channel commentating games no one heard of, indeed, I once googled my own sc2 handle and found a German cast of one of my own games interestingly enough, never heard of that commentator and indeed, only 2 views on youtube.
They either do it out of a delusional hope to one day make it big, or just because they love doing it. A friend of mine wanted to cast with me, I didn't really want to, she just enjoyed doing it she said.
On November 09 2012 12:14 SidianTheBard wrote: It's not so much personal fame, but more so that if you spend hours, days, weeks creating a map, it would be nice if there was a way to get someplace to actually use your map, or worst case take a look at it. When you spend days making a map only to post it on TL and get at most 20 replies and then it's never seen or heard of again, really makes creating maps not worth it.
Yeah, I see what you mean, it's a bit sad if that's what you're after but I'm afraid it's just how it'll always be. Same thing happened in BW. There were like 3 guys who were contracted by KeSPA to make maps, good luck for any other guy to get a map being KeSPA sanctioned.
Heck, I can speak from personal experience. I won the IPL map contest, they used my map through Team Arena Challenge 2 and also used it in some of their earlier fight clubs. The Playhem daily tournaments ended up picking it up for months after that, it ended up getting well over 3k+ games played on it. Funny part though, I guarantee you 99% of the players who played on the map had no clue I created it. I'll take this a step farther and say I bet you have no clue what map I'm even talking about. I also bet a majority of the people who read my reply will have no clue what map I'm talking about. Do I care? Absolutely not. I'm just happy that a major tournament took the chance to bring in some new maps to at least test them out.
Well, I know you're talking about Darkness Falls, it aesthetically immediately caught my eyes and I did some research into it. Layout is cool I guess, as well. But yeah, I probably know this mostly because I'm interested in maps.
I guess one of the reasons people aren't interested in the names of mappers is because you can't really tell by looking at a map who made it. Mappers aren't that 'stylistic'. If you told me Winpark instead of LS made DayBreak I would've believed you. People care about the names of players I guess because they have something stylistic. And people don't really care about you if you're 'just another Korean Terran' with the same style everyone is. MKP is mad popular because his playing style is instantly recognisable.
To me, it's ridiculous that there are all these brand new maps getting posted constantly and instead we're still stuck with TDA and Shakuras in map pools. Also, before you say crap like Jacky, LS and Winpark are the only mappers who ever "made it" you should also realize that if GSL didn't take a chance with them and playtest their maps they would just be random mapper #7321.
I'm not saying they made it out of skill, in fact, I'm saying the inverse, like I said, a tier one mapper isn't infinitely better than a tier 2 mapper the way it is in progaming itself. I'm just saying that because of that. GOM can just contract 3 guys to supply them with all their mapping needs, they probably could do with 2, or even 1. That's how the economics of mapmaking works I guess. Tournaments would be fine if there was only one guy who made all maps and just made them really quickly. The player scene is dependent on there being multiple maps.
Maybe it's about time IPL or MLG to step it up and try to bring something new to the table.
I'd love nothing more. It'll lead to recognition for some, and most importantly to me new cool maps, but it won't lead to anything for most alas. The scene is a bit oversaturated.
I totally get where Sidian is coming from. There are no opportunities for map makers. Without opportunity there's nothing to strive for and very little reason to mess around. No tournament is willing to look at new maps so theres basically no reason to map except to practice.
Yes.
It's crazy that commentators get all the recognition when it comes to non-players in the SC2 scene (while getting paid), but the job of a good dedicated observer or a good mapmaker (or even a good production crew, although they also get paid ) is arguably harder. Not harder in terms of raw hours or amount of travel necessary, but difficulty-wise. Having a little game knowledge and being comfortable talking in front of a camera is not as hard as not missing anything while observing, while also catching most/all of the little things that happen in a game that a mediocre observer or caster who is observing would miss. Or balancing a map for all matchups while still bringing something fresh and interesting to the table and making it appealing to look at. And making it fun to play.
Not here to bash casters at all, as they are very necessary and the best ones are quite talented, but it's messed up everyone cares so much about them and not the other important people behind the scenes.
So I see where Sidian is coming from as well. Unless you still have a great love for the game and the map creation process (which some of us are fortunate enough to still have that fire - hopefully we don't burn out as well), there's no reason to keep mapping.
Well, this is very much like life, why do singers and sports players get such a high salary for such a silly job while teachers and doctors earn very little? A lot of times people do hard work and care, but not get almost anything, while others get all the money. There is a reason why this business is not fair, because it is after all only a business.
You can compare it to other things that are similar, like news for example, a lot of time the researchers and and those who actually write what the casters say get almost no credit and their salary is much lower (I presume) than what those who show on TV get. Life is not fair, sadly, but in the end if you truly love something you will do it even if it is low / non paid and no one knows you by doing it. Sometimes I consider map making an art, and it really feels like it, since you created something that is beautiful, and even that you want to see it made public, it is OK if its not.
On November 09 2012 12:19 SiskosGoatee wrote: Also, that's not what I meant with low skill ceiling, I meant that the difference between a first tier mapper and a second tier mapper isn't as great as that of a first tier player and a second tier player.
I like to think I've been progressing at a decent rate in this game of mapmaking and I will just say: there are so many subtleties to this that you cannot even begin to fathom as a newbie. Just as you can't comprehend the nuances and thought processes that define top level SC2 play without a solid understanding of the game, when you become skilled enough you can truly appreciate the genius that goes into some of the maps being made. There's an old saying - the more you know, the more you realize how little you know. I still feel quite ignorant in the grand scheme of this.
Also, you call it oversaturated, I feel under-represented is more accurate. Oversaturation implies that we've already filled our "quota" for good mapmakers, and those people are the only ones who will ever make anything worthwhile, and that we needn't foster new talent, when that simply isn't true of a field like this. Competition characterizes this trade, having fresh blood is important as well. Our problem is that nothing is being done to incorporate any of our maps into tournament pools. If even 1 map of ours is introduced each year, then the more the merrier, more competition fosters better results.
On November 09 2012 12:19 SiskosGoatee wrote: Also, that's not what I meant with low skill ceiling, I meant that the difference between a first tier mapper and a second tier mapper isn't as great as that of a first tier player and a second tier player.
I like to think I've been progressing at a decent rate in this game of mapmaking and I will just say: there are so many subtleties to this that you cannot even begin to fathom as a newbie. Just as you can't comprehend the nuances and thought processes that define top level SC2 play without a solid understanding of the game, when you become skilled enough you can truly appreciate the genius that goes into some of the maps being made. There's an old saying - the more you know, the more you realize how little you know. I still feel quite ignorant in the grand scheme of this.
Maybe, but can you numerically quantify this difference in the same way you can do this with progamers? The only numerical quantification you have is that a top echelon mapmaker is likely to draw in x times as much viewers for games on his maps than a lower echelon mapmaker. And my assertion is that that x is very close to 1.
Unlike with progamers versus diamond leaguers or whatever, the difference is immediately noticeable to every viewer. That's why tournaments care to attract the best and the finest players, whose skill is also numerically quantifiable in terms of Elo-like ratings and number of tournament victories.
Also, you call it oversaturated, I feel under-represented is more accurate. Oversaturation implies that we've already filled our "quota" for good mapmakers, and those people are the only ones who will ever make anything worthwhile, and that we needn't foster new talent, when that simply isn't true of a field like this. Competition characterizes this trade, having fresh blood is important as well. Our problem is that nothing is being done to incorporate any of our maps into tournament pools. If even 1 map of ours is introduced each year, then the more the merrier, more competition fosters better results.
Because tournaments don't care, because they can't see the difference between what you call a top tier mapmaker's work and a less than top tier mapmaker's work. And neither can viewers, and indeed, apparently neither can players since they have a tendency to call maps good which are supposedly bad.
That's how the market works. You can make the finest bread with the finest ingredients and the finest process but if the people don't taste the difference between your bread and everyday bread they're not going to care for it.
Where of course what makes good bread is highly subjective.
That's a pretty awful argument. Just because you can't numerically quantify the difference as easily between 2 things doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist or is any smaller than 2 things that are more easily quantifiable.
On November 09 2012 15:13 Fatam wrote: That's a pretty awful argument. Just because you can't numerically quantify the difference as easily between 2 things doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist or is any smaller than 2 things that are more easily quantifiable.
I don't think he was trying to say it was a direct argument. Just that there isn't much hope, or perhaps even need, for better maps. If the viewers and everyone can't tell that the map is better, is there even a benefit to having a better map?
I think so. A new map can improve quality which is something we should strive for even if it doesn't mean more viewers imo... But tournament organizers might feel differently. Still, I think this improvement in quality will in fact grow viewership or stop it from shrinking as much, even if you the viewers can't directly compare the maps and say the better one is better.
On November 09 2012 15:13 Fatam wrote: That's a pretty awful argument. Just because you can't numerically quantify the difference as easily between 2 things doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist or is any smaller than 2 things that are more easily quantifiable.
Maybe, but it means tournaments don't care and therefore cannot be arsed to go after what you consider the 'best' maps.
I'm just explaining why there's not a lot of recognition in mapmaking going on.
On November 09 2012 15:13 Fatam wrote: That's a pretty awful argument. Just because you can't numerically quantify the difference as easily between 2 things doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist or is any smaller than 2 things that are more easily quantifiable.
I don't think he was trying to say it was a direct argument. Just that there isn't much hope, or perhaps even need, for better maps. If the viewers and everyone can't tell that the map is better, is there even a benefit to having a better map?
I think so. A new map can improve quality which is something we should strive for even if it doesn't mean more viewers imo... But tournament organizers might feel differently. Still, I think this improvement in quality will in fact grow viewership or stop it from shrinking as much, even if you the viewers can't directly compare the maps and say the better one is better.
"Better" maps aren't even necessary. SC2 needs different maps to help reset/refine strategy and keep the game interesting.
Noone is argueing that judging a map isn't subjective. You're just repeating yourself and this discussion isn't progressing any further.
Noone can argue that it would be nice if maps got a little more recognition, and not be forgotten the next week. Even if you're just making maps for fun that would still be a nice, wouldn't it?
And I also think noone can argue that seeing a new map every once in a while is more interesting to many, many people, than seeing the same maps for years.
On November 09 2012 15:13 Fatam wrote: That's a pretty awful argument. Just because you can't numerically quantify the difference as easily between 2 things doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist or is any smaller than 2 things that are more easily quantifiable.
I don't think he was trying to say it was a direct argument. Just that there isn't much hope, or perhaps even need, for better maps. If the viewers and everyone can't tell that the map is better, is there even a benefit to having a better map?
I think so. A new map can improve quality which is something we should strive for even if it doesn't mean more viewers imo... But tournament organizers might feel differently. Still, I think this improvement in quality will in fact grow viewership or stop it from shrinking as much, even if you the viewers can't directly compare the maps and say the better one is better.
"Better" maps aren't even necessary. SC2 needs different maps to help reset/refine strategy and keep the game interesting.
That is what you say, tournaments disagree and I'm sure they have their media consultants working for them.
I'm not even sure that faster map rotation is going to lead to more viewers, which is ultimately the holy grail of any media enterprise.
On November 09 2012 23:17 lefix wrote: Noone is argueing that judging a map isn't subjective. You're just repeating yourself and this discussion isn't progressing any further.
I beg to differ, some people are.
Fatam:
"Ah, but there are some subjective things that the vast majority of players agree upon, which makes them (for all intents and purposes)"objective".."
OxyGenesis:
"Antiga is an objectively poorly designed map because [...]"
The reason I'm "repeating myself" is because you come with falsehoods thereby requiring me to dispel them. Yes, if you claim the earth is flat I will repeat it is round and tell you why that is so until you believe me because you can't have a sensible discussion based on falsehood. That some people have said that map judging has objective qualities is a fact. Claiming that it no such people have said that is a falsehood.
Noone can argue that it would be nice if maps got a little more recognition, and not be forgotten the next week. Even if you're just making maps for fun that would still be a nice, wouldn't it?
It is, but I'm just saying that if you expected anything other than it is when you started mapmaking you had unrealistic expectations.
And I also think noone can argue that seeing a new map every once in a while is more interesting to many, many people, than seeing the same maps for years.
That is in dispute. I think that in reality the majority of viewers don't care, as in, don't care with their wallet. I'm sceptical that tournaments are going to have more views if they try a quicker map rotation.
Also, "you're just repeating yourself", you said that before and before you didn't offer a compelling numerical argument back then either. If you're going to convince me or a tournament you gotta come with numbers. One has to appreciate that as mapmakers there is a certain conflict of interest going on. People believe what they want to believe is true. In the end, it is beneficial for mapmakers if map rotation spiked viewer interest. There is currently no conclusive proof whatsoever that it does. I am pretty sure that if tournaments noticed that if they added a new map it would get disproportionally more views because people want to check the new map out they would add more and more new maps. Tournament organizers aren't stupid.
Anyway, I'm going to reverse this discussion gentlemen. Why not you (whoever wants to) explain this to me:
- What is a good map, what qualities does a map posses for it to be good in your own opinion aside from obviously balance, what is 'good gameplay' that a 'good map' should encourage? - Do you believe that trying a quicker map rotation is in the best interest of the tournament - Do you believe that TO's are bad at what they are doing because they are reluctant to massively try a quicker map rotation?
On November 09 2012 23:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: Anyway, I'm going to reverse this discussion gentlemen. Why not you (whoever wants to) explain this to me:
- What is a good map, what qualities does a map posses for it to be good in your own opinion aside from obviously balance, what is 'good gameplay' that a 'good map' should encourage? - Do you believe that trying a quicker map rotation is in the best interest of the tournament - Do you believe that TO's are bad at what they are doing because they are reluctant to massively try a quicker map rotation?
Map making has elements that are both objective and subjective, the same as music, web design, film production and yes even art. By asserting that it is purely subjective you are oversimplifying a complex subject and degenerating what could otherwise be a useful conversation. I'm not saying your points haven't been useful, they have, you just don't need to keep rewording them in every post you make. It's frustrating when other people are trying to advance the conversation and you keep dragging it back, thank you for trying another tact with your latest comment though.
I don't fully agree with your 'tournaments will only listen to numbers' argument. Tournament organisers are pragmatic, they understand that putting on a good show will increase their viewers/revenue and I'm sure they are more than willing to listen to good ideas to improve their shows provided they don't cost too much. Hopefully they are already aware of the community's desire for new maps, as that will make them more receptive to our ideas.
I work in the graphic and web design industry, so I know something about trying to sell 'ideas' to business people. If there is one thing I've learned it's that no 2 clients are alike, regardless of the size of their business or the industry they are working in. Some clients like the personal touch, others like facts and figures, others just get excited by the prospect of new ideas floating around. What I'm getting at is that sometimes changing your angle of approach can reap benefits and I would very much encourage the map making community to 'mix it up' because clearly the current approach isn't working.
To answer your questions:-
Asking what makes up a good map is kind of like asking what makes a good website. There are numerous answers to the question, many of which are right and some of which are wrong, but you are more likely to get an accurate answer from an experienced web designer than you are from someone that browsed the site for 10 minutes. I could talk about overarching theories on web design, but it's much easier and more useful to talk about specific web sites. The same goes for maps, you can talk about circle syndrome or the difficulty in expanding in the general sense but it's much more useful to analyse maps on a case by case basis. We don't need a set of rules that governs what makes a map good or not because we make maps and we have an inherent understanding because of that. If you want to know about what is looked at when judging a map then Barrin wrote an excellent post about a month ago titled 'Judging a melee map' or something like that.
Map rotation is good because it freshens up what could potentially be a stagnating competitive scene. Tournament organisers are reluctant to introduce new maps because they don't want to be the ones to 'Blink' first. Past experience is inconclusive and in relatively volatile market tournament organisers have so far been erring on the side of caution because it's safer in the short term and no one has come to them with a viable alternative. What we need to do as a community is provide them with a viable alternative. We have the backing of the community (and a whole heap of TL and reddit comments to prove it), now we need the maps, people and infrastructure to bridge the rest of the gap. If we don't, then the mapmaking community will slowly die, as it has been doing for the past year.
On November 09 2012 23:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: Anyway, I'm going to reverse this discussion gentlemen. Why not you (whoever wants to) explain this to me:
- What is a good map, what qualities does a map posses for it to be good in your own opinion aside from obviously balance, what is 'good gameplay' that a 'good map' should encourage? - Do you believe that trying a quicker map rotation is in the best interest of the tournament - Do you believe that TO's are bad at what they are doing because they are reluctant to massively try a quicker map rotation?
Map making has elements that are both objective and subjective, the same as music, web design, film production and yes even art.
Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that.
By asserting that it is purely subjective you are oversimplifying a complex subject and degenerating what could otherwise be a useful conversation.
No, you're simplifying it by calling it objective, objective matters are in fact far, far simpler than subjective matters my friend. To discuss the length of a rope, which is objective is quite simple, you say the length, and then there's nothing more to discuss. The aesthetics of a painting is a far more complex endeavour to discuss. Objective matters are extremely simple compared to objective matters and if map quality was completely objective, like say balance was the only thing that mattered. The entire discussion would be extremely simple, you pick the map which is the most balanced. The end. Unfortunately it is wholly subjective and therefore far more complicated since you have to please all parties.
I'm not saying your points haven't been useful, they have, you just don't need to keep rewording them in every post you make. It's frustrating when other people are trying to advance the conversation and you keep dragging it back, thank you for trying another tact with your latest comment though.
I'm "rewording" them to different people because like I pointed out before, they don't get it. Iefix has said, black on white, that no one would say judging maps is an objective process, there we have it, a falsehood. How am I not to repeat myself when someone comes with a falsehood? I'm sorry but I'm going to repeat the earth is round every time someone says it's flat, call it repeating or not but you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who believes the earth is flat until they are convinced it is round. Just as you cannot meaningfully debate this issue with someone who believes that no one would say that, because evidently there are some people who would say that, you being one of them.
I don't fully agree with your 'tournaments will only listen to numbers' argument. Tournament organisers are pragmatic, they understand that putting on a good show will increase their viewers/revenue and I'm sure they are more than willing to listen to good ideas to improve their shows provided they don't cost too much. Hopefully they are already aware of the community's desire for new maps, as that will make them more receptive to our ideas.
Okay, so what argument that is numerical in natural do you have in store to attempt to convince them?
I work in the graphic and web design industry, so I know something about trying to sell 'ideas' to business people. If there is one thing I've learned it's that no 2 clients are alike, regardless of the size of their business or the industry they are working in. Some clients like the personal touch, others like facts and figures, others just get excited by the prospect of new ideas floating around. What I'm getting at is that sometimes changing your angle of approach can reap benefits and I would very much encourage the map making community to 'mix it up' because clearly the current approach isn't working.
So do I, and I've never been able to convince anyone of anything without showing numbers of past result to demonstrate that it works and the market is receptive.
Asking what makes up a good map is kind of like asking what makes a good website. There are numerous answers to the question, many of which are right and some of which are wrong, but you are more likely to get an accurate answer from an experienced web designer than you are from someone that browsed the site for 10 minutes. I could talk about overarching theories on web design, but it's much easier and more useful to talk about specific web sites. The same goes for maps, you can talk about circle syndrome or the difficulty in expanding in the general sense but it's much more useful to analyse maps on a case by case basis. We don't need a set of rules that governs what makes a map good or not because we make maps and we have an inherent understanding because of that. If you want to know about what is looked at when judging a map then Barrin wrote an excellent post about a month ago titled 'Judging a melee map' or something like that.
This is not an answer to my question, rather it serves to illustrate the point I'm trying to make about this.
This won't ever convince any tournament whatsoever. All they care about are viewer numbers, to them, a good map is map which gets viewer a lot, no more, no less.
Map rotation is good because it freshens up what could potentially be a stagnating competitive scene. Tournament organisers are reluctant to introduce new maps because they don't want to be the ones to 'Blink' first. Past experience is inconclusive and in relatively volatile market tournament organisers have so far been erring on the side of caution because it's safer in the short term and no one has come to them with a viable alternative. What we need to do as a community is provide them with a viable alternative. We have the backing of the community (and a whole heap of TL and reddit comments to prove it), now we need the maps, people and infrastructure to bridge the rest of the gap. If we don't, then the mapmaking community will slowly die, as it has been doing for the past year.
And is a stagnate competitive scene bad for their viewer numbers?
Do you profess to know how to run their business better than they?
On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote: Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that.
This sums up your contribution quite nicely: nothing. Is your goal simply to beat your point into our heads until we say you're right?
I'm sorry, but I've contributed far more novel ideas to this discussion than you have whose majority of insight into it comes down to sharky comments like this. Quite frankly, you just disagree with my, admittedly, fatalistic position and don't want to hear it. You are as guilty as I of what you claim I do, except that I have contributed far more novel ideas to the table than you have.
On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote: Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that.
This sums up your contribution quite nicely: nothing. Is your goal simply to beat your point into our heads until we say you're right?
I'm sorry, but I've contributed far more novel ideas to this discussion than you have whose majority of insight into it comes down to sharky comments like this. Quite frankly, you just disagree with my, admittedly, fatalistic position and don't want to hear it. You are as guilty as I of what you claim I do, except that I have contributed far more novel ideas to the table than you have.
How has what I said come to resemble your words in any way? You've stated your position - that tournament organizers care only about viewer numbers, that they want empirical proof that a map will boost them, and that we know nothing - but how do you know this to be true? It is a fatalistic view, as you say, but for all we know it's nothing more than an assumption, and repeatedly shoving your assumptive point of view into our sight with every of your posts is stifling and irritating to those who read it. Most of what I've been saying is said toward the end of, frankly, getting you to shut up.
On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote: Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that.
This sums up your contribution quite nicely: nothing. Is your goal simply to beat your point into our heads until we say you're right?
I'm sorry, but I've contributed far more novel ideas to this discussion than you have whose majority of insight into it comes down to sharky comments like this. Quite frankly, you just disagree with my, admittedly, fatalistic position and don't want to hear it. You are as guilty as I of what you claim I do, except that I have contributed far more novel ideas to the table than you have.
How has what I said come to resemble your words in any way? You've stated your position - that tournament organizers care only about viewer numbers, that they want empirical proof that a map will boost them, and that we know nothingt how do you know this to be true
Because they ask it on Twitter?
it is a fatalistic view, as you say, but for all we know it's nothing more than an assumption, and repeatedly shoving your assumptive point of view into our sight with every of your posts is stifling and irritating to those who read it. Most of what I've been saying is said toward the end of, frankly, getting you to shut up.
Because you are repeatedly assuming something which is not only unproven but also unlikely. Namely that tournament organizers benefit from a rotating map pool and/or that they don't need such numbers to be convinced. I am merely sceptical towards the former, it could go either way. However we have clear indication in a form of the Tweet by Sundance in that he's not interested in theory, he wants numbers, no more, no less.
You 'repeating' that tournaments would benefit from a rotating map pool doesn't make it true, I am not convinced either way however there is no proof that this is even the case, furthermore, even if it were true, good luck proving it to them.
You have been more repetitive than I I feel. As have a lot of other people in this discussion quite frankly, difference is that you don't like my few, because not only is it dissident, it's also fatalistic, the last thing people want to hear is 'I'm sorry, but what you want to achieve, there is no way to achieve that.'
On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote: Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that.
This sums up your contribution quite nicely: nothing. Is your goal simply to beat your point into our heads until we say you're right?
I'm sorry, but I've contributed far more novel ideas to this discussion than you have whose majority of insight into it comes down to sharky comments like this. Quite frankly, you just disagree with my, admittedly, fatalistic position and don't want to hear it. You are as guilty as I of what you claim I do, except that I have contributed far more novel ideas to the table than you have.
How has what I said come to resemble your words in any way? You've stated your position - that tournament organizers care only about viewer numbers, that they want empirical proof that a map will boost them, and that we know nothingt how do you know this to be true
it is a fatalistic view, as you say, but for all we know it's nothing more than an assumption, and repeatedly shoving your assumptive point of view into our sight with every of your posts is stifling and irritating to those who read it. Most of what I've been saying is said toward the end of, frankly, getting you to shut up.
Because you are repeatedly assuming something which is not only unproven but also unlikely. Namely that tournament organizers benefit from a rotating map pool and/or that they don't need such numbers to be convinced. I am merely sceptical towards the former, it could go either way. However we have clear indication in a form of the Tweet by Sundance in that he's not interested in theory, he wants numbers, no more, no less.
You 'repeating' that tournaments would benefit from a rotating map pool doesn't make it true, I am not convinced either way however there is no proof that this is even the case, furthermore, even if it were true, good luck proving it to them.
You have been more repetitive than I I feel. As have a lot of other people in this discussion quite frankly, difference is that you don't like my few, because not only is it dissident, it's also fatalistic, the last thing people want to hear is 'I'm sorry, but what you want to achieve, there is no way to achieve that.'
I haven't assumed anything, you're clearly conflating my words with someone else's. You argue that a rotating map pool might rub some people the wrong way, but you'd be catering to a minority. What we're trying to do is something that will add to the longevity to this game - you're just being contrary. If you don't think it can be done, go skive off and leave us be. You've already brought up legitimate concerns, let us work with that. Re-reiterating that this is an impossible task does literally nothing to help - if I acknowledge it as impossible it will be because we've put our best foot forward and failed completely, not because you're here shitting on everything.
On November 09 2012 23:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: Anyway, I'm going to reverse this discussion gentlemen. Why not you (whoever wants to) explain this to me:
- What is a good map, what qualities does a map posses for it to be good in your own opinion aside from obviously balance, what is 'good gameplay' that a 'good map' should encourage? - Do you believe that trying a quicker map rotation is in the best interest of the tournament - Do you believe that TO's are bad at what they are doing because they are reluctant to massively try a quicker map rotation?
Map making has elements that are both objective and subjective, the same as music, web design, film production and yes even art.
Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that.
By asserting that it is purely subjective you are oversimplifying a complex subject and degenerating what could otherwise be a useful conversation.
No, you're simplifying it by calling it objective, objective matters are in fact far, far simpler than subjective matters my friend. To discuss the length of a rope, which is objective is quite simple, you say the length, and then there's nothing more to discuss. The aesthetics of a painting is a far more complex endeavour to discuss. Objective matters are extremely simple compared to objective matters and if map quality was completely objective, like say balance was the only thing that mattered. The entire discussion would be extremely simple, you pick the map which is the most balanced. The end. Unfortunately it is wholly subjective and therefore far more complicated since you have to please all parties.
I'm not saying your points haven't been useful, they have, you just don't need to keep rewording them in every post you make. It's frustrating when other people are trying to advance the conversation and you keep dragging it back, thank you for trying another tact with your latest comment though.
I'm "rewording" them to different people because like I pointed out before, they don't get it. Iefix has said, black on white, that no one would say judging maps is an objective process, there we have it, a falsehood. How am I not to repeat myself when someone comes with a falsehood? I'm sorry but I'm going to repeat the earth is round every time someone says it's flat, call it repeating or not but you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who believes the earth is flat until they are convinced it is round. Just as you cannot meaningfully debate this issue with someone who believes that no one would say that, because evidently there are some people who would say that, you being one of them.
I don't fully agree with your 'tournaments will only listen to numbers' argument. Tournament organisers are pragmatic, they understand that putting on a good show will increase their viewers/revenue and I'm sure they are more than willing to listen to good ideas to improve their shows provided they don't cost too much. Hopefully they are already aware of the community's desire for new maps, as that will make them more receptive to our ideas.
Okay, so what argument that is numerical in natural do you have in store to attempt to convince them?
I work in the graphic and web design industry, so I know something about trying to sell 'ideas' to business people. If there is one thing I've learned it's that no 2 clients are alike, regardless of the size of their business or the industry they are working in. Some clients like the personal touch, others like facts and figures, others just get excited by the prospect of new ideas floating around. What I'm getting at is that sometimes changing your angle of approach can reap benefits and I would very much encourage the map making community to 'mix it up' because clearly the current approach isn't working.
So do I, and I've never been able to convince anyone of anything without showing numbers of past result to demonstrate that it works and the market is receptive.
Asking what makes up a good map is kind of like asking what makes a good website. There are numerous answers to the question, many of which are right and some of which are wrong, but you are more likely to get an accurate answer from an experienced web designer than you are from someone that browsed the site for 10 minutes. I could talk about overarching theories on web design, but it's much easier and more useful to talk about specific web sites. The same goes for maps, you can talk about circle syndrome or the difficulty in expanding in the general sense but it's much more useful to analyse maps on a case by case basis. We don't need a set of rules that governs what makes a map good or not because we make maps and we have an inherent understanding because of that. If you want to know about what is looked at when judging a map then Barrin wrote an excellent post about a month ago titled 'Judging a melee map' or something like that.
This is not an answer to my question, rather it serves to illustrate the point I'm trying to make about this.
This won't ever convince any tournament whatsoever. All they care about are viewer numbers, to them, a good map is map which gets viewer a lot, no more, no less.
Map rotation is good because it freshens up what could potentially be a stagnating competitive scene. Tournament organisers are reluctant to introduce new maps because they don't want to be the ones to 'Blink' first. Past experience is inconclusive and in relatively volatile market tournament organisers have so far been erring on the side of caution because it's safer in the short term and no one has come to them with a viable alternative. What we need to do as a community is provide them with a viable alternative. We have the backing of the community (and a whole heap of TL and reddit comments to prove it), now we need the maps, people and infrastructure to bridge the rest of the gap. If we don't, then the mapmaking community will slowly die, as it has been doing for the past year.
And is a stagnate competitive scene bad for their viewer numbers?
Do you profess to know how to run their business better than they?
Have you ever thought that maybe it was not others but you that didn't get it? I said that map making was a combination of both objective and subjective ideas, pigeonholing it in to either category is wholly unhelpful.
So that's mistake number 1 that you make, mistake number 2 is thinking that you speak for 'tournament organisers' and what they wish for. I don't profess to know their business better than they do, I am merely a consumer expressing my opinion on their product. You are the one that thinks they are speaking on the behalf of 'tournament organisers'. Furthermore if the only way you've ever convinced anyone of anything (your words) is by 'proving' it with numbers then you probably aren't the right person to be convincing people (you don't seem very good at it).
Jesus are you still arguing? Siskos is contributing nothing to the mapmaking community, just leave him alone. He is annoying and just won't shut up ever it seems.
On November 09 2012 23:51 SiskosGoatee wrote: Anyway, I'm going to reverse this discussion gentlemen. Why not you (whoever wants to) explain this to me:
- What is a good map, what qualities does a map posses for it to be good in your own opinion aside from obviously balance, what is 'good gameplay' that a 'good map' should encourage? - Do you believe that trying a quicker map rotation is in the best interest of the tournament - Do you believe that TO's are bad at what they are doing because they are reluctant to massively try a quicker map rotation?
Map making has elements that are both objective and subjective, the same as music, web design, film production and yes even art.
Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that.
By asserting that it is purely subjective you are oversimplifying a complex subject and degenerating what could otherwise be a useful conversation.
No, you're simplifying it by calling it objective, objective matters are in fact far, far simpler than subjective matters my friend. To discuss the length of a rope, which is objective is quite simple, you say the length, and then there's nothing more to discuss. The aesthetics of a painting is a far more complex endeavour to discuss. Objective matters are extremely simple compared to objective matters and if map quality was completely objective, like say balance was the only thing that mattered. The entire discussion would be extremely simple, you pick the map which is the most balanced. The end. Unfortunately it is wholly subjective and therefore far more complicated since you have to please all parties.
I'm not saying your points haven't been useful, they have, you just don't need to keep rewording them in every post you make. It's frustrating when other people are trying to advance the conversation and you keep dragging it back, thank you for trying another tact with your latest comment though.
I'm "rewording" them to different people because like I pointed out before, they don't get it. Iefix has said, black on white, that no one would say judging maps is an objective process, there we have it, a falsehood. How am I not to repeat myself when someone comes with a falsehood? I'm sorry but I'm going to repeat the earth is round every time someone says it's flat, call it repeating or not but you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who believes the earth is flat until they are convinced it is round. Just as you cannot meaningfully debate this issue with someone who believes that no one would say that, because evidently there are some people who would say that, you being one of them.
I don't fully agree with your 'tournaments will only listen to numbers' argument. Tournament organisers are pragmatic, they understand that putting on a good show will increase their viewers/revenue and I'm sure they are more than willing to listen to good ideas to improve their shows provided they don't cost too much. Hopefully they are already aware of the community's desire for new maps, as that will make them more receptive to our ideas.
Okay, so what argument that is numerical in natural do you have in store to attempt to convince them?
I work in the graphic and web design industry, so I know something about trying to sell 'ideas' to business people. If there is one thing I've learned it's that no 2 clients are alike, regardless of the size of their business or the industry they are working in. Some clients like the personal touch, others like facts and figures, others just get excited by the prospect of new ideas floating around. What I'm getting at is that sometimes changing your angle of approach can reap benefits and I would very much encourage the map making community to 'mix it up' because clearly the current approach isn't working.
So do I, and I've never been able to convince anyone of anything without showing numbers of past result to demonstrate that it works and the market is receptive.
Asking what makes up a good map is kind of like asking what makes a good website. There are numerous answers to the question, many of which are right and some of which are wrong, but you are more likely to get an accurate answer from an experienced web designer than you are from someone that browsed the site for 10 minutes. I could talk about overarching theories on web design, but it's much easier and more useful to talk about specific web sites. The same goes for maps, you can talk about circle syndrome or the difficulty in expanding in the general sense but it's much more useful to analyse maps on a case by case basis. We don't need a set of rules that governs what makes a map good or not because we make maps and we have an inherent understanding because of that. If you want to know about what is looked at when judging a map then Barrin wrote an excellent post about a month ago titled 'Judging a melee map' or something like that.
This is not an answer to my question, rather it serves to illustrate the point I'm trying to make about this.
This won't ever convince any tournament whatsoever. All they care about are viewer numbers, to them, a good map is map which gets viewer a lot, no more, no less.
Map rotation is good because it freshens up what could potentially be a stagnating competitive scene. Tournament organisers are reluctant to introduce new maps because they don't want to be the ones to 'Blink' first. Past experience is inconclusive and in relatively volatile market tournament organisers have so far been erring on the side of caution because it's safer in the short term and no one has come to them with a viable alternative. What we need to do as a community is provide them with a viable alternative. We have the backing of the community (and a whole heap of TL and reddit comments to prove it), now we need the maps, people and infrastructure to bridge the rest of the gap. If we don't, then the mapmaking community will slowly die, as it has been doing for the past year.
And is a stagnate competitive scene bad for their viewer numbers?
Do you profess to know how to run their business better than they?
Have you ever thought that maybe it was not others but you that didn't get it? I said that map making was a combination of both objective and subjective ideas, pigeonholing it in to either category is wholly unhelpful.
Yes, and I say that judging it has no objective qualities whatsoever, the same with art.
You know that for instance saying that murder/rape/whatever is bad is subjective, and not objective right? I don't think you fully realize what objective and subjective means.
So that's mistake number 1 that you make, mistake number 2 is thinking that you speak for 'tournament organisers' and what they wish for.
I do in the case when we have clear indication, as in, a Twitter post, which shows exactly what I am saying, sundance wants numbers, not theory.
I don't profess to know their business better than they do
You have I believe called them ignorant in the past for their course of action.
I am merely a consumer expressing my opinion on their product. You are the one that thinks they are speaking on the behalf of 'tournament organisers'. Furthermore if the only way you've ever convinced anyone of anything (your words) is by 'proving' it with numbers then you probably aren't the right person to be convincing people (you don't seem very good at it).
I am just saying what they want, and in the case of Sundance have explicitly said that he wants. Sundance in this case said black on white that he wants numbers and not theory. Other TO's haven't but it's not much of a stress to assume they work on a similar principle because almost every media company does. Viewer/listener numbers dictate everything in television, film, radio, theatre.
On November 10 2012 10:17 Ragoo wrote: Jesus are you still arguing? Siskos is contributing nothing to the mapmaking community, just leave him alone. He is annoying and just won't shut up ever it seems.
Well I think this thread is pretty much derailed already. Meh.
Yes, and I say that judging it has no objective qualities whatsoever, the same with art.
Of course judging art has objective qualities to it, the same as music or film. Why do you insist on boiling everything down to either subjective or objective when doing so is incredibly unhelpful? Map making isn't even art, it's design.
You know that for instance saying that murder/rape/whatever is bad is subjective, and not objective right? I don't think you fully realize what objective and subjective means.
I do understand what they mean thank you. Nice use of the rape card though.
I do in the case when we have clear indication, as in, a Twitter post, which shows exactly what I am saying, sundance wants numbers, not theory.
You have 1 tweet. Please don't profess to know the mind of someone that you have never actually met, met alone know.
You have I believe called them ignorant in the past for their course of action.
I don't remember calling them ignorant but even if I did ignorant is a descriptive word, not an insult. It's pretty clear that on the whole they are ignorant of the map making community, and that is largely our fault.
I am just saying what they want, and in the case of Sundance have explicitly said that he wants. Sundance in this case said black on white that he wants numbers and not theory. Other TO's haven't but it's not much of a stress to assume they work on a similar principle because almost every media company does. Viewer/listener numbers dictate everything in television, film, radio, theatre.
You do not speak for the tournaments. You have taken 1 tweet and decided to use it to knock down every useful argument that has been brought up in this and other threads and you wonder why people get annoyed at you and say you are unhelpful to the conversation? I had my own radio show in the past and let me tell you, not everything is dictated by viewer numbers, I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Can a show get cut because of low viewer numbers? Sure. But actually the producers are far more likely to look at the show (both objectively and subjectively) and make suggestions for changes. Viewer numbers are an indicator, right now they are indicating that SC2 is on the decline. Hopefully the most savvy tournament organisers will take this as an indicator that something needs to be changed and what's the hot topic right now? Maps.
Your flat earth analogy falls flat (sorry) when you realise that the only evidence you have that the world is round is 1 tweet made quite a long time ago. Then you realise that most of the flat earthers aren't even saying the earth is flat, they just want to explore the world a bit more and 1 guy is stopping them saying 'there's no point sailing over there, the earth is round so you'll just come right back to where you started. It says so here on this ancient vague manuscript written by the great god Sundance. Praise him for he is infallible'.