|
Amateur here with a question.
I submitted a map, but have since made major revisions to it. What should I do? Should I PM it as my second entry with the standard format?
I hosted the original file on SC2mapster. I've hosted the new file on SC2mapster as well under a different name.
The main-to-main and nat-to-nat distances are different between original and new.
|
On April 26 2013 05:50 Barrin wrote: errybody post your maps! no secrets xD!
Very well then, check out my map
Khaydarin Shrine:
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:37 adghar wrote: Amateur here with a question.
I submitted a map, but have since made major revisions to it. What should I do? Should I PM it as my second entry with the standard format?
I hosted the original file on SC2mapster. I've hosted the new file on SC2mapster as well under a different name.
The main-to-main and nat-to-nat distances are different between original and new. Yes PM it through again.
|
This is excellent, although I hope we don't get another Cloud Kingdom...
|
I too prefer new maps to be unique.
|
On April 26 2013 21:30 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 19:06 SiskosGoatee wrote:On April 26 2013 18:00 Fatam wrote:less likely someone has time to steal an idea from your map (if it's a good one) if you post later Why is this a bad thing? Oh wait, silly me, I forgot, we're not out to actually help the scene, we're out to get our maps played on the ladder and acquire fame, fast cars, money and beautiful women. Silly, silly me for for a second assuming it was about getting good maps on the ladder rather than getting our own maps on the ladder. Basic conventions of innovation: the people who put in the time and resources to develop something new deserve incentive to do so. This incentive is realized in a simple form of temporary competitive advantage, whether it's done through patent law in the real world or withholding the design details of a new map in SC2 for a competition like TLMC until sometime closer to the submission deadline. Nobody's stopping you from using those ideas the moment they're released by the original author -- something that helps the scene as a whole. Yeah again, so like I said, people perceive it as a 'reward' to get their map played on the ladder rather than simply getting a good map into the ladder.
People in the end don't care about 'helping the mapping scene', in the end they care about their maps getting exposure. Because well.. I don't know, fame, fast cars, money, beautiful women. I can get the last three even though you realistically won't get it from mapping. Why people are out to acquire fame I never got. Except that it leads to the latter three in a lot of cases, but even if it doesn't, what does it do for you to be famous?
What does it do for you if your map gets into the ladder, is it not in the end about simply getting good maps into the ladder irrespective of origin?
I mean, if someone can improve upon my idea and make a better version of my map, steal my idea, and get that version into the ladder, by all means, have at it. That is my 'incentive' to post early. It increases the chance of better maps into the pool because people will take potentially take my idea and improve upon it.
|
You're a good person Siskos. I agree people need to care more about simply getting the best maps in ladder/tournaments and less about having that map made by themselves (more specifically, the effects of the fame that comes with it).
But are you arguing that Reputation and Intellectual Property (and by extension, intellectual and creative Capital) are useless concepts?
|
dont even start this in here guys .....
|
On April 26 2013 23:09 Barrin wrote: But are you arguing that Reputation and Intellectual Property (and by extension, intellectual and creative Capital) are useless concepts? Not all. The incentive for Microsoft to make windows is to make money, they can do this via IP laws, this guarantees that windows exist (Though some people argue it shouldn't) but you get the argument.
The point is, Microsoft is a commercial corporation that creates jobs and material benefits for its employees. IP laws create a marked and they feed people.
In this case. We are not likely to earn anything even if our maps get into the ladder, all we have is fame and prestige, which when you think of it actually amounts to nothing. I can't buy bread from fame in the mapping scene. So I'm arguing that because we wil never make money anyway, we should switch our incentive not to getting our own maps played, but to get the best maps played. And in that sense, open sharing of information and ideas enhances the quality of maps.
I mean, I had a 'novel idea' in this thread. I made a map with an inbase natural that is closer to the opponent than the main ramp that can easily be harassed. Thereby shifting the focus from attacking the main ramp to harassing the natural. If you like this idea and you think you can make a better map with it. Please, by all means do so and then we will let the community decide which of both is better so that we have the highest chance of getting the map in the ladder pool which the majority of people like to play on. This should be our incentive and goal, because we cannot ever realistically make money from it. IP and trade secrets serve to create a capitalist marked to create jobs for mappers, but let's face it, this is not realistic.
On April 26 2013 23:16 Terranlover wrote: dont even start this in here guys .....
Fine, if anyone wants to reply to me, I invite them to create a new thread I suppose.
|
In the interest of ripping each other off. Here's a 2v2 map I'm working on now, I might submit it:
One player gets a save natural but a harassable main, the other players get a more tucked away main but an open natural. Not too sure about ovie+cannon strats though but I guess the other player can help against them.
|
On April 26 2013 23:19 SiskosGoatee wrote: ... The incentive for Microsoft to make windows is to make money ... And the incentive for Mapmakers is to acquire a positive Reputation through Fame and Prestige which in turn equals Influence.
BTW Bill Gates is quite a philanthropist, I have a hard time believing he wants money only for himself. I also have a hard time believing he never wanted fame and prestige.
Money is not the only incentive.
In this case. We are not likely to earn anything even if our maps get into the ladder, all we have is fame and prestige, which when you think of it actually amounts to nothing. I can't buy bread from fame in the mapping scene. Fame and Prestige is more than nothing. Many people throughout history (and especially recently) who have all the bread they need spend/spent a lot of time and money and other resources in exchange for Fame and Prestige and thus Influence.
Trust. Money can't buy trust. Fame and Prestige on the other hand - people are constantly willing to let experts do the thinking for them and then proceed TRUST their decisions. Fame and Prestige are much more effective at this than any currency/commodity.
And I would argue that if I was starving I bet I could get some generous SC players to donate me some bread (surely some would do it anyway, but I'm sure my mapmaking contributions would convince a few more).
So I'm arguing that because we wil never make money anyway, we should switch our incentive not to getting our own maps played, but to get the best maps played. A noble goal and I want to reiterate that this is also one of my goals.
But is this your only goal? Should the making community be slaves to the playing community, foregoing all of their own desires in favor of the others'?
Perhaps another noble goal would be to satisfy mapmakers in the process. I submit that urging/expecting mapmakers to forego their desire for Fame/Prestige/Influence is a morally unacceptable method of achieving the goal of getting the best maps played.
---
And in that sense, open sharing of information and ideas enhances the quality of maps. Of course it does. What do you think I was doing for the majority of my time mapmaking? I wasn't actually making very many maps... I was spending a great deal of time acquiring, understanding, and then teaching information for the express goal of enhancing the quality of everyone's maps.
Find me the person who's spent more time doing that than me in the SC community (including BW, they tell me I sorta invented it, though I'm not sure about korea BW).
I acquired all the fame/prestige/influence I could ask for... except for the fact that I wasn't really marketing maps anymore. My knowledge/experience with SC2 mapmaking is genuine, but if you looked close at me it did look a little silly that I wasn't using it to create quality maps. It wasn't that I couldn't (think what you want), but why didn't I?
Because open sharing of information and ideas becomes extremely tedious with something as complex as SC2 mapmaking and as few people working on it as the mapmaking community. (And btw I had banling responsibilities too so gimme a break - I guess I did get a break if I didn't already take [another] one haha).
If you understand the raw simplicity / lack of comprehensiveness of the idea you proposed (if you bother saying whether or not you do you're missing the point) then you will start to see why this 'open sharing of information and ideas' in the context of SC2 mapmaking is extremely tedious, difficult to fully explain and understand, and therefore non-conducive to efficient communication. If time spent is a measure of confidence in the value of open sharing of information and ideas, then nobody values it more than me (all the way back to my first map thread cataloging way more than it should).. and I doubt anyone knows better than me how incredibly inefficient it is.
It is here that reputation becomes more than a personal goal for mapmakers but also a potentially useful (albeit potentially harmful) mechanism for maximizing the chances of getting the best maps to be played and the best ideas to be spread.
(Yes, it would be best if everyone could all sit down and discuss all important concepts of every map, after establishing that everyone understands all factors involved, to the point where everyone has a complete picture of every map and where we could take a true majority vote [with weight given to those who care/play more?] on which maps are the best ones. And then all the mapmakers could take all the information about all that and make more maps for all of us to sit down and discuss in detail, repeating until we get plenty of near-perfect maps. Except that it's impossibly inefficient and will actually never happen.)
To reiterate the main point of this post: Barrin I submit that urging/expecting mapmakers to forego their desire for Fame/Prestige/Influence is a morally unacceptable method of achieving the goal of getting the best maps played.
|
2v2
|
your Country52794 Posts
This is exactly what I was hoping someone would make.
|
Exactly?!
|
your Country52794 Posts
On April 27 2013 03:33 Barrin wrote:Exactly?! Actually, yes. Same textures and layout. How convenient.
|
On April 26 2013 22:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 21:30 iamcaustic wrote:On April 26 2013 19:06 SiskosGoatee wrote:On April 26 2013 18:00 Fatam wrote:less likely someone has time to steal an idea from your map (if it's a good one) if you post later Why is this a bad thing? Oh wait, silly me, I forgot, we're not out to actually help the scene, we're out to get our maps played on the ladder and acquire fame, fast cars, money and beautiful women. Silly, silly me for for a second assuming it was about getting good maps on the ladder rather than getting our own maps on the ladder. Basic conventions of innovation: the people who put in the time and resources to develop something new deserve incentive to do so. This incentive is realized in a simple form of temporary competitive advantage, whether it's done through patent law in the real world or withholding the design details of a new map in SC2 for a competition like TLMC until sometime closer to the submission deadline. Nobody's stopping you from using those ideas the moment they're released by the original author -- something that helps the scene as a whole. Yeah again, so like I said, people perceive it as a 'reward' to get their map played on the ladder rather than simply getting a good map into the ladder. People in the end don't care about 'helping the mapping scene', in the end they care about their maps getting exposure. Because well.. I don't know, fame, fast cars, money, beautiful women. I can get the last three even though you realistically won't get it from mapping. Why people are out to acquire fame I never got. Except that it leads to the latter three in a lot of cases, but even if it doesn't, what does it do for you to be famous? What does it do for you if your map gets into the ladder, is it not in the end about simply getting good maps into the ladder irrespective of origin? I mean, if someone can improve upon my idea and make a better version of my map, steal my idea, and get that version into the ladder, by all means, have at it. That is my 'incentive' to post early. It increases the chance of better maps into the pool because people will take potentially take my idea and improve upon it. You're basically making the assumption that a mapmaker with a new map design convention won't have a good map. If a mapmaker is submitting to TLMC, it's because they think their map is good enough for ladder -- possibly even the best of the bunch. Your argument is stupid because it assumes the two concepts are mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, what mapmakers are looking for is to build a reputation as being a good mapmaker, just as anyone wants to be recognized for their talents at the things they do. Imagine if SUPEROUMAN shared all his WIPs and design ideas for Cloud Kingdom to other mapmakers, and someone else jacked the whole concept got their map placed on ladder instead. Would have been a seriously raw deal for him, and that kind of thing is enough to stifle innovation in any market. What you're asking for is what would actually hurt scene.
I don't know why you need to be needlessly argumentative in every thread you post in, but cut it out or use an argument grounded in common sense for once.
EDIT: Oh, just saw the appeal to take any responses to PM. I shan't post about this sideshow in the thread again.
|
your Country52794 Posts
On April 25 2013 20:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:I guess I'll be submitting this guy since it's essentially the only map I made in a long time that respects all the rules of the contest (I like unconventional resource nodes). Why yes, that is an island expansion that can easily be harassed from the high ground. Smallest 12 base map in the business. That's not a 12 base map. O_o apparently you have over-ridden the image of your previous map, somehow. Interesting.
|
Yeah, oops I have it seems. The 2v2 map is there now.
I'll fix it later.
|
On April 27 2013 07:21 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 20:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:I guess I'll be submitting this guy since it's essentially the only map I made in a long time that respects all the rules of the contest (I like unconventional resource nodes). Why yes, that is an island expansion that can easily be harassed from the high ground. Smallest 12 base map in the business. That's not a 12 base map. O_o apparently you have over-ridden the image of your previous map, somehow. Interesting.
It's 1.5 day. Everything you say and do must be multiplied by 1.5. Didn't you get the memo, Templar?
|
I personally have no problem with that conversation being in here lol, never thought it needed to leave (kadaver seems to agree). What else are we talking about?
continuing continued thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409781
'cause hell why not (this is not a bad discussion people)
---
On April 27 2013 06:47 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 06:38 Barrin wrote: Motivation to create these maps is a limited resource. I'd like to hear your thoughts on increasing it.
As you pointed out we're not even getting paid currency for producing these goods and services, and yet you are proposing removing(?) the other main thing that motivates us. Where is this going? We're not slaves. I'm not proposing anything, as I aid, this isn't an ought, it's an is. It's a declarative observation, not a suggested course of action. I assume this is the observation you are referencing?
Personal ego > nurturing the mapping scene. Well I hope you don't feel like you were adding anything new when you say that. Most of us basically know.
No, we are not selfless altruists, though surely one would bring up this very fact in a thread topic (after all it was on my list ^^) - though I'm not sure about the whole refraining from proposing solutions thing. Solutions are pretty important.
I think you're specifically suggesting that everyone just post an image of the map they submit to TLMC2, which I agree with and dedicated a whole post in the TLMC2 thread to.
Frankly they lose a little bit of reputation if I notice it, and IMO that's the proper response to such a thing here. They want good reputation from you -> you don't like what they do -> deny them a good reputation, or better yet give it to someone else. This motivates them to do better next time. Free market wins.
The solution is definitely to not pay them [fame] for their sub-par [map].
Or is that not really good enough for you? I assume your lack of suggestions indicates you respect individual freedom and the value of the free market, but I hope you can see that given the circumstances and your hesitation, one may be lead to assume quite the opposite. This isn't really a capitalism vs communism debate is it?
Can you see now that it would be most beneficial if you were to be more transparent?
|
|
|
|