EPTHow someone could possibly be at 2 streams at the same time and exactly on Nathanias to know if he is in need or not, of the whole Twitch. Seems like a lie.
Can We Talk About Maps For A Second? - Page 2
| Blogs > Avexyli |
|
Seizon
3 Posts
How someone could possibly be at 2 streams at the same time and exactly on Nathanias to know if he is in need or not, of the whole Twitch. Seems like a lie. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15971 Posts
On March 18 2017 02:40 Seizon wrote: Rifkin, you are just using an extravagant excuse to defend your extremely rude response to Avex. If you were that busy streaming and casting a game by 12:38, how would you EVER know Nathanias wasn't in need of that help? How someone could possibly be at 2 streams at the same time and exactly on Nathanias to know if he is in need or not, of the whole Twitch. Seems like a lie. dude when he's in the middle of streaming/casting he can't analyze everything + write respectful detailed answers to Avex. What do you expect? | ||
|
Avexyli
United States696 Posts
On March 18 2017 00:56 Rifkin wrote: You messaged me at 12:38 PM PST (Clarified by this screenshot) and we were in a game at the time. Being someone I valued as important, I took the time to read & reply despite casting the game at hand. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wX9cMXy.png) I did not have the time to write, "Avex, clearly you're unaware that Nathanias finished casting his last game at 12:30 (12:28 by the screencap) PM PST, before you even messaged me, and that he was not casting in the upcoming days, so that was literally his last game. No, we won't be forcing players to replay on the 'fixed' versions of the map you've suggested, and since he's not casting any future days as clearly outlined in the Team Liquid thread, it won't ultimately matter whether he's aware of the correct map names going forward" so instead I wrote, idc tbh to make it clear it did not matter, and that I did not care as I was busy with observing/casting the game at hand. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YdM8VzQ.png) I really care a lot about starcraft, and I really don't appreciate you opening the opportunity for trolls and morons to try to justify their hatred for rifkin (because reasons!) such as in this thread as well as already on reddit. Sigh, the entire point of the post was to highlight as many issues as I could with memory since I was recently asked to express my issues with the contest and the current ladder situation. So much of the contest is intertwined that it's hard to talk about one thing without also mentioning another. This is also only my perspective, I was technically not supposed to be so involved as I was, and I know much more than I probably should. I did not message you the instant I found out Nathanias did not have a link to the map pool. I became aware at 11:21AM PST. Nathanias expressed his concerns on stream at 1h 24minutes and 40 seconds of his stream, seen here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/123736819?t=1h24m40s And since you posted the direct skype screenshot, you might as well also include that I preluded to my concerns with the rest of the conversation: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8eiEgzp.png) You had between then and now to explain to me that you couldn't give me a full response during casting - something I mentioned in the OP: as I did believe I was interrupting his cast. And I'm really baffled that you had expressed no concerns that Nate was not using the correct maps, on a tournament for said maps. It doesn't matter if it was his last game or his first game, the fact that at any point this is a problem should be a major concern! I never called for regames, I pointed out that this was a problem. This should never be a problem, and if it is, it needs to be very carefully handled and prevented in the future contests. The reason I never followed up, is because you have always had a very clear cut way of having conversation. It's always very obvious when you want the conversation to cease, and even then many followups are met to no response, either due to your schedule, you're sleeping, or have no interest in responding. So how am I supposed to read your mind that "idc" was "I'm busy please respond to me later" and not the perception I received and posted here? Like I bolded in the post about Blizzard, clear and concise communication is extremely important. I really care a lot about starcraft, and I really don't appreciate you opening the opportunity for trolls and morons to try to justify their hatred for rifkin (because reasons!) such as in this thread as well as already on reddit. Yea, and I really care about StarCraft as well. And the way you're wording this to me seems like "Do not criticize anything I do at any point, because it invites trolls." Rif, you're an adult, you've been on the internet for just as long as I, and you should know that anyone will troll and berrate you for the smallest and littlest of things, you need to put your ego down and realize that there was a greater message to this post, that the contest was really rough for multiple parties and needs improvements. There are two paragraphs on BTTV in this post, but if you really read the bigger picture, you can see it is a clear criticism on the fact that no one had enough time to do anything properly, you had issues, TL had issues, the mappers had issues, and I'm sure if we knew anything about Blizz, they had issues too. Responding to the other posts: Just from reading this thread of Avex I got infuriated with Rifkin and Blizzard as well. How can we have such an influent person in the community like Rifkin who, situation after situation, only shows he is truly someone that acts and pretends only for his (BTTV) personal advantage or gains. Unbelievable how we accept that. I really don't think this is the case, Rifkin defends himself valiantly and understandably, but I do not think at any point is any of the issues described here involved with his personal gain (what would he even gain?) I'm all for Blizzard having final decision on the ladder pool but the way they modify maps without caring for the mapmakers choices disgusts me (galactic process anyone?). The actual creator figured the rocks needed a different value because of their positionning on the map, are the guys at blizzard SO FULL of themselves they know standard value is better on a map they didn't make and which barely saw any competitive play? Baffling. I think your frustration is in the right place, but perhaps slightly misguisded. I do not think Blizz sees so highly of themselves that they can do whatever they want. They probably see something posing as a problem with the majority of players ingame. A concern with both altered mineral and rock values, is that theres no clear consistency between maps. For example, a 6x6 debris on one map will have 2000 hp by default, but an another its 8000. Many players will not know why, and be confused. Especially since maps phase out rather quickly, it's hard to keep track of unless you keep playing alot of games. It's a bit of a double edged sword. | ||
|
ArtyK
France3143 Posts
On March 18 2017 02:59 Avexyli wrote: Sigh, the entire point of the post was to highlight as many issues as I could with memory since I was recently asked to express my issues with the contest and the current ladder situation. So much of the contest is intertwined that it's hard to talk about one thing without also mentioning another. This is also only my perspective, I was technically not supposed to be so involved as I was, and I know much more than I probably should. I did not message you the instant I found out Nathanias did not have a link to the map pool. I became aware at 11:21AM PST. Nathanias expressed his concerns on stream at 1h 24minutes and 40 seconds of his stream, seen here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/123736819?t=1h24m40s And since you posted the direct skype screenshot, you might as well also include that I preluded to my concerns with the rest of the conversation: You had between then and now to explain to me that you couldn't give me a full response during casting - something I mentioned in the OP: Yeah i know, that's why i phrased it as a question. Although i don't think your argument is valid for the rock value. If i put myself back in my bronze body learning the game, or in the place of a casual player, i don't think i would care in the slightest why a rock has 8000hp and another 2000, if anything i would be like "oh it's just different on this map, makes sense not all maps are the same, good to know" And if competitive players can't figure out why then they're dumb -_-' | ||
|
Avexyli
United States696 Posts
dude when he's in the middle of streaming/casting he can't analyze everything + write respectful detailed answers to Avex. What do you expect? I expect him to finish his cast and give me a response after it's done explaining why he didn't feel it was neccessary to do anything about it. If he had done so this point would have never been raised and we likely would have settled this discussion there. But as I pointed out in my response, Rifkin is very cut and short with his answers, and it's hard to tell when he's just being that way or when he wants the conversation to end. I'm sure others who talk to him can provide similar testimony. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On March 17 2017 17:28 Avexyli wrote: Players do not want rush maps on ladder, do not force your playerbase to eat food they think tastes like garbage and give them the steak they voted for, and not what you found in the freezer that hasn't been seen by the cooks or waiters. Please do not piss off your pro playerbase and make them hate the game because you want to push the maps in a direction. I really don't understand, you include a 9 mineral main in Windwaker for what reason? (you did eventually change this) You throw an 8 high yield gold base in for what reason? Or the 10 mineral 1 gas base in? All this does is piss players off because now these maps are going to play out a ton different early game with a bunch of different timings. What's the point of learning all these timings when the other 6 maps in the pool will have their normal timings? I don't understand the whole fancy "1/2 base / alternative base" love by every other single map maker as all it does is "piss off your pro playerbase" --- Take a look at Blood Boil. Zerg need gas, protoss need gas. Zerg at least can take the forward 3rd base with 8m 2 gas, but there would be almost not point for them to want to take the 10mineral 1 gas base. They don't need the extra minerals. They already for the most part have a surplus in minerals. Not like having extra zerglings will be useful unless...you're doing an all-in, aka pissing pros off, since it changes timings up a ton. Instead, they'll have to expand aggressively, and then even more aggressively to get another full gas base. Protoss, can at least somewhat survive on less gas because they can still mass adept, zealot, photon cannons for the added defense. Terran, oh my god, they'll turtle on that easily defendable 3rd base with extra minerals to build extra barracks and extra marines and parade push the ever living hell outta that zerg that was forced to either take less gas, or expand aggressively. Now, I'm just using Blood Boil as an example but you can look at just about any other "experimental resource" map that people are just throwing half bases here and there just because it's uber leet 420. Sequencer, I like. (At least for using the 1/2 base) It's basically 3 base behind one choke, so it makes sense to make it a half base. So now you have a choice, you either take the 1/2 base so you can stay behind one choke, or you expand out, take the full base and now you're much more open. You have a choice in the matter. At that point you can then take your 1/2 base and be on 3 1/2, or you keep expanding horizontally and take the other full 4th base. --- Most professional players don't want unique maps with resource changes and super short rush distances. Professional players want standard maps. That's the only thing professional players want. So doing anything other then that is "forcing the playerbase to eat garbage" --- From the many many years I've been creating sc2 maps, the one thing I can honestly say is that I have created a lot of gimmicky maps and I have also created a lot of standard maps. You know the major difference between the two? The more gimmicky maps are the ones hated by people while my more standard maps are the ones people enjoy most. K.I.S.S. Avex! Keep it simple, stupid! =P | ||
|
ArtyK
France3143 Posts
On March 18 2017 03:17 Avexyli wrote: It's not an argument that I personally believe, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the argument Blizzard is using, sorry for the confusion. I expect him to finish his cast and give me a response after it's done explaining why he didn't feel it was neccessary to do anything about it. If he had done so this point would have never been raised and we likely would have settled this discussion there. But as I pointed out in my response, Rifkin is very cut and short with his answers, and it's hard to tell when he's just being that way or when he wants the conversation to end. I'm sure others who talk to him can provide similar testimony. Wouldn't be surprised either, sounds like one of the numerous concerns they have about the dumbest and most insignificant stuff possible | ||
|
ArtyK
France3143 Posts
On March 18 2017 03:19 SidianTheBard wrote: I do not believe this post was needed and as it does really nothing to help and only pushes away the people that are actually helping us. How is this useful to bash Blizzard, TL & basetrade which are the three biggest reasons our maps used? I really don't understand, you include a 9 mineral main in Windwaker for what reason? (you did eventually change this) You throw an 8 high yield gold base in for what reason? Or the 10 mineral 1 gas base in? All this does is piss players off because now these maps are going to play out a ton different early game with a bunch of different timings. What's the point of learning all these timings when the other 6 maps in the pool will have their normal timings? I don't understand the whole fancy "1/2 base / alternative base" love by every other single map maker as all it does is "piss off your pro playerbase" --- Take a look at Blood Boil. Zerg need gas, protoss need gas. Zerg at least can take the forward 3rd base with 8m 2 gas, but there would be almost not point for them to want to take the 10mineral 1 gas base. They don't need the extra minerals. They already for the most part have a surplus in minerals. Not like having extra zerglings will be useful unless...you're doing an all-in, aka pissing pros off, since it changes timings up a ton. Instead, they'll have to expand aggressively, and then even more aggressively to get another full gas base. Protoss, can at least somewhat survive on less can because they can still mass adept, zealot, photon cannons for the added defense. Terran, oh my god, they'll turtle on that easily defendable 3rd base with extra minerals to build extra barracks and extra marines and parade push the ever living hell outta that zerg that was forced to either take less gas, or expand aggressively. Now, I'm just using Blood Boil as an example but you can look at just about any other "experimental resource" map that people are just throwing half bases here and there just because it's uber leet 420. Sequencer, I like. (At least for using the 1/2 base) It's basically 3 base behind one choke, so it makes sense to make it a half base. So now you have a choice, you either take the 1/2 base so you can stay behind one choke, or you expand out, take the full base and now you're much more open. You have a choice in the matter. At that point you can then take your 1/2 base and be on 3 1/2, or you keep expanding horizontally and take the other full 4th base. --- Most professional players don't want unique maps with resource changes and super short rush distances. Professional players want standard maps. That's the only thing professional players want. So doing anything other then that is "forcing the playerbase to eat garbage" --- From the many many years I've been creating sc2 maps, the one thing I can honestly say is that I have created a lot of gimmicky maps and I have also created a lot of standard maps. You know the major difference between the two? The more gimmicky maps are the ones hated by people while my more standard maps are the ones people enjoy most. K.I.S.S. Avex! Keep it simple, stupid! =P But blizzard is helping the few mapmakers left while making everything else worse than it should be, feels like this post was needed to show it. Rifkin, as Avex pointed out, stop thinking the world is against you, everyone has haters and trolls, but even when you are totally right you handle things so poorly that it backfires and you end up wondering why people focus on you so much. For instance this thread criticizes the way the contest was handled, and that stupid skype conversation was a small part of it, big deal! "Attacking BTTV? Not on my watch! Better prove him wrong and be mad on twitter!" Problem isn't that you defend yourself but that you always do while assuming people were targetting you specifically or something. This rarely leads to proper discussions and creates even more excuses for your haters to feed on. In this case there was a misuderstanding, maybe it's Avex's fault, maybe it's yours, or both, "idc" to be honest, but do you really need to get so defensive? Was the whole point of him mentionning BTTV to bash you? Of course not. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States696 Posts
On March 18 2017 03:19 SidianTheBard wrote: I do not believe this post was needed and as it does really nothing to help and only pushes away the people that are actually helping us. How is this useful to bash Blizzard, TL & basetrade which are the three biggest reasons our maps used? I think I did a fairly decent job highlighting the major issues during the contest while also showing it as critique that needs to be addressed. I don't know if this is pushing away TL, as they're equally aware of all the mess, and all I did was shed light on it. Maybe monk and plexa are pissed? They haven't said anything to me yet I really don't understand, you include a 9 mineral main in Windwaker for what reason? (you did eventually change this) You throw an 8 high yield gold base in for what reason? Or the 10 mineral 1 gas base in? All this does is piss players off because now these maps are going to play out a ton different early game with a bunch of different timings. What's the point of learning all these timings when the other 6 maps in the pool will have their normal timings? I don't understand the whole fancy "1/2 base / alternative base" love by every other single map maker as all it does is "piss off your pro playerbase" ...All the BB stuff I don't like the application of Blood Boils experimental resources, or for most of the category.. It was put there to squeeze it into the submissions, I admitted that in the original post. I think bandalrog was the only good execution of experimental resources. And I'm not sure how I feel about pissing players off with changing mineral counts. Perhaps the first three bases should remain untouched? I did raise the point that the Exp Resource category felt shoehorned in, rather than the entire contest being an avenue to try new things in other categories (though it was accepted, like in Sequencer). Also, the 9m Windwaker was just a curious experiment, nothing more. --- Most professional players don't want unique maps with resource changes and super short rush distances. Professional players want standard maps. That's the only thing professional players want. So doing anything other then that is "forcing the playerbase to eat garbage" I'm not too sure if this is true, but I have nothing to back up my claim for this. Also, thanks Sidian for the repsonse <3 | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
Me, personally, think Blood Boil would be much better with just normal bases. It's probably the main reason I thought Hwangsan was your strongest map because it was still a good map with options of expansions but also bases were normal. I think too many mappers get it into their mind sets that they have to do something unique and different to stand out from everybody else but maybe we just need Daybreak 3.0 or just need Overgrowth 2.0. As mizenhauer said earlier in the thread he could just play on Overgrowth 24/7. It makes me wonder if you just re-textured Overgrowth 7 different times so basically you had the same map just 7 different looks to it, if the pro player base would really even notice much. --- Blizzard includes maps in the pool for a reason, they don't just roll a die and whatever side it lands on is the map they pick. Maybe the pro players dislike rush maps but if they want to put another rush map in the pool, maybe the silver and gold players love the aggressive rush maps? Remember, GM level & Professional players are a tiny portion of their playerbase. Maybe what we really need is a Masters/GM/Pro level map pool and a lower league map pool...that topic could be for another day... --- I don't mean to come off as rude at all towards you Avex, you know I have massive respect for you and really do appreciate the things you do for the community and the maps you create. It's just nice to have a little...disagreement here and there. =P | ||
|
killerm12
Slovakia601 Posts
On March 18 2017 02:40 Seizon wrote: Rifkin, you are just using an extravagant excuse to defend your extremely rude response to Avex. If you were that busy streaming and casting a game by 12:38, how would you EVER know Nathanias wasn't in need of that help? How someone could possibly be at 2 streams at the same time and exactly on Nathanias to know if he is in need or not, of the whole Twitch. Seems like a lie. from your comments it's obvious you're just waiting for an opportunity to shit on Rifkin/BTTV what's worse, you're trying to look like you're impartial. Now I understand why BTTV is so hated. like you didn't hate them already... Rifkin probably knew when Nate finished because they were in contact? Nate coul've messaged Rif/ZG he already finished? chat might've mentioned Nate's games are already done? no no, that can't be possible, it's that evil Rifkin guy also, nice of you to completely derail discussion | ||
|
killerm12
Slovakia601 Posts
On March 18 2017 03:19 SidianTheBard wrote: I do not believe this post was needed and as it does really nothing to help and only pushes away the people that are actually helping us. How is this useful to bash Blizzard, TL & basetrade which are the three biggest reasons our maps used? I really don't understand, you include a 9 mineral main in Windwaker for what reason? (you did eventually change this) You throw an 8 high yield gold base in for what reason? Or the 10 mineral 1 gas base in? All this does is piss players off because now these maps are going to play out a ton different early game with a bunch of different timings. What's the point of learning all these timings when the other 6 maps in the pool will have their normal timings? I don't understand the whole fancy "1/2 base / alternative base" love by every other single map maker as all it does is "piss off your pro playerbase" --- Take a look at Blood Boil. Zerg need gas, protoss need gas. Zerg at least can take the forward 3rd base with 8m 2 gas, but there would be almost not point for them to want to take the 10mineral 1 gas base. They don't need the extra minerals. They already for the most part have a surplus in minerals. Not like having extra zerglings will be useful unless...you're doing an all-in, aka pissing pros off, since it changes timings up a ton. Instead, they'll have to expand aggressively, and then even more aggressively to get another full gas base. Protoss, can at least somewhat survive on less gas because they can still mass adept, zealot, photon cannons for the added defense. Terran, oh my god, they'll turtle on that easily defendable 3rd base with extra minerals to build extra barracks and extra marines and parade push the ever living hell outta that zerg that was forced to either take less gas, or expand aggressively. Now, I'm just using Blood Boil as an example but you can look at just about any other "experimental resource" map that people are just throwing half bases here and there just because it's uber leet 420. Sequencer, I like. (At least for using the 1/2 base) It's basically 3 base behind one choke, so it makes sense to make it a half base. So now you have a choice, you either take the 1/2 base so you can stay behind one choke, or you expand out, take the full base and now you're much more open. You have a choice in the matter. At that point you can then take your 1/2 base and be on 3 1/2, or you keep expanding horizontally and take the other full 4th base. --- Most professional players don't want unique maps with resource changes and super short rush distances. Professional players want standard maps. That's the only thing professional players want. So doing anything other then that is "forcing the playerbase to eat garbage" --- From the many many years I've been creating sc2 maps, the one thing I can honestly say is that I have created a lot of gimmicky maps and I have also created a lot of standard maps. You know the major difference between the two? The more gimmicky maps are the ones hated by people while my more standard maps are the ones people enjoy most. K.I.S.S. Avex! Keep it simple, stupid! =P ^^THIS | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On March 18 2017 03:59 SidianTheBard wrote: I always believe it's awesome to get more exposure for mapping but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. Either way, what's done is done. Me, personally, think Blood Boil would be much better with just normal bases. It's probably the main reason I thought Hwangsan was your strongest map because it was still a good map with options of expansions but also bases were normal. I think too many mappers get it into their mind sets that they have to do something unique and different to stand out from everybody else but maybe we just need Daybreak 3.0 or just need Overgrowth 2.0. As mizenhauer said earlier in the thread he could just play on Overgrowth 24/7. It makes me wonder if you just re-textured Overgrowth 7 different times so basically you had the same map just 7 different looks to it, if the pro player base would really even notice much. --- Blizzard includes maps in the pool for a reason, they don't just roll a die and whatever side it lands on is the map they pick. Maybe the pro players dislike rush maps but if they want to put another rush map in the pool, maybe the silver and gold players love the aggressive rush maps? Remember, GM level & Professional players are a tiny portion of their playerbase. Maybe what we really need is a Masters/GM/Pro level map pool and a lower league map pool...that topic could be for another day... --- I don't mean to come off as rude at all towards you Avex, you know I have massive respect for you and really do appreciate the things you do for the community and the maps you create. It's just nice to have a little...disagreement here and there. =P I mean there were some clear process problems with this TLMC, and I don't think it's wrong to outline them. The fact that mapmaking only gets exposure when drama like this happens is unfortunate, but that's just how the community is. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On March 18 2017 03:19 SidianTheBard wrote: I really don't understand, you include a 9 mineral main in Windwaker for what reason? (you did eventually change this) You throw an 8 high yield gold base in for what reason? Or the 10 mineral 1 gas base in? All this does is piss players off because now these maps are going to play out a ton different early game with a bunch of different timings. What's the point of learning all these timings when the other 6 maps in the pool will have their normal timings? ... I disagree so much with this post and the resource standardization is pretty stupid. I had a nice chat with AVEX yesterday and REALLY appreciated his willingness to push boundaries on things like resource patch numbers (both amount of patches and amount of minerals in patches). It makes every map more unique without changing the game excessively for lower level players. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On March 18 2017 04:23 Pokebunny wrote: I disagree so much with this post and the resource standardization is pretty stupid. I had a nice chat with AVEX yesterday and REALLY appreciated his willingness to push boundaries on things like resource patch numbers (both amount of patches and amount of minerals in patches). It makes every map more unique without changing the game excessively for lower level players. For lower level players sure, it's not going to matter much but how can you say that as a professional player? When you change up the main or natural mineral lines now that one single map is going to have a ton of different timings and all-ins then every other map in the map pool. Starcraft2 already has so many timings, all-ins, & build orders available on just the standard 8m 2 gas maps and now you want to basically double if not triple all those timings just to have some unique 9 mineral main base? At that point, why even bother to learn all that when you can just veto it 24/7 and play normal on the other 6 maps? The only time it's ever going to get played will be from lower leagues, random ladder practice & the grand finals Bo7 where you can't veto maps. Unless of course all maps in the map pool suddenly change to 9 mineral mains and 10 mineral 1 gas naturals to force players to learn those timings, it's just going to be 100% easier to just veto the map because you already have way too much to worry about in sc2 then learning a ton of new timings on one map that's almost never going to get played. | ||
|
blunderfulguy
United States1415 Posts
On March 18 2017 03:19 SidianTheBard wrote: I really don't understand, you include a 9 mineral main in Windwaker for what reason? (you did eventually change this) You throw an 8 high yield gold base in for what reason? Or the 10 mineral 1 gas base in? All this does is piss players off because now these maps are going to play out a ton different early game with a bunch of different timings. What's the point of learning all these timings when the other 6 maps in the pool will have their normal timings? I don't understand the whole fancy "1/2 base / alternative base" love by every other single map maker as all it does is "piss off your pro playerbase" Unless I'm misunderstanding things, you can't compare these situations this way, they are incredibly different. One is a company and team of game developers making decisions that affect the player base, the other is one guy exploring new potential gameplay possibilites which does not itself affect players, so your argument here seems invalid. The point that I see is why choose a rush map that isn't popular and focuses on gameplay that players do not like over several other maps that focus on gameplay that people enjoy playing and watching and are far more popular. Even if the latter choice involves different timings than other maps in the pool, if they are more enjoyable than the former then why not pick them. | ||
|
Seizon
3 Posts
On March 18 2017 02:59 Charoisaur wrote: dude when he's in the middle of streaming/casting he can't analyze everything + write respectful detailed answers to Avex. What do you expect? Doesn't matter, dude. The point is that he is lying most probably. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Bijan
United States286 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I think the whole "experimental maps always = reduced # of viable strategies" thing is somewhat bollocks. They sometimes do go hand in hand but you can absolutely make experimental maps that also allow tons of different strategies. Some of them have an even wider range of viable strategies than many standard maps. Granted, a lot of those kinds of maps have never seen the light of day (because Blizzard usually only takes the batshit insane ones that DO reduce strategies), but yeah, they exist. | ||
|
blunderfulguy
United States1415 Posts
The big issues I've had for the last handful of these are the map requirements and the map categories for the contest, either the category requirements feel off, the maps in the categories feel off, or the judging of the categories felt off. And then what Blizzard adds to the ladder map pool can feel off too. So, why have a single contest with all of these categories to decide maps for ladder if the categories don't work? Is there a better way to do map making contests that focus on individual aspects of map making instead of trying to cover everything all at once on a short notice? I used to participate in a lot of traditional art contests and I follow several artists who submit to or judge very large, prestigious art contests or head art design teams. Many smaller art contests are hyper focused on a single type of medium, art style, or subject matter (like Macro, Rush, Ramps, Rocks, etc.), which works extremely well for the artists, the judges, and people viewing or voting in the contests and function similarly to how art design happens for a game like Magic: the Gathering set. Clear guidelines, exploring a specific idea together, and ending up with a phenomenal set of Gothic Horror paintings, abstract sculpture, or, perhaps for SC2, an in-depth analysis of how Double Ramps can be used in 1v1 map design. Large contests such as the Spectrum Art Contest happen annually and an incredible number of masterpieces get submitted each year and the best of the best get collected in each edition of the Spectrum art book, and in some ways it feels similar to what TLMC tries to do but I don't believe it's the best way to go about it for StarCraft 2, especially for choosing new ladder maps. For Spectrum, it's a large collection of awesome fantasy art and it works great. For TLMC, however, it's a large collection of maps that are all supposed be ladder viable but also explore new ideas but also fit into gameplay categories which sometimes don't make sense and... Ew. What if there was a TLMC Season consisting of multiple contests each individually focused on exploring map design instead? As an example: TLMC 2017 Summer Contest announced at the end of Spring with judging taking place the last two weeks of Summer, two small tournaments scheduled for the last weekend of Summer, and winners announced the first weekend of Autumn. The contest theme is Air Blockers. Map makers will use the new Air Unit AI and new editor tools to explore Large and Small maps showcasing Air Blockers with a two submission limit per map maker. Judges for this contest are three past TLMC judges along with Artosis and Jacky. Obviously just an very loose idea of what I mean. Something that focuses itself and doesn't cram its way into and confuse the ladder map decisions as much and over time could explore everything from art design in maps, multiplayer AI, terrain features, specific strategies or armies, and so on, providing a smorgasbord of information for Blizzard and map makers which everyone can use to make the best map pool possible and not restricting new ladder maps to be exclusively from the TLMC while letting people loose a little to have fun with it instead of stressing everyone to no end. A winning map could see ladder play of course, but I think another option is to pick parts of a contest map as the foundation for a new map intended from the very start to be used on ladder. The way it is now is... Well, for me it doesn't seem like the TLMC is doing what it's intended to do and it's confusing and upsetting a lot of map makers, players, and I'm sure developers when a lot of these things in this thread happen, and I'm also not a fan of the process from a personal standpoint. I want to see map makers shine in contests focused on something they're good at and also be inspired to do something outside their comfort zone without the stress of possibly failing the only TLMC in the whole year. And with some dang time to make a cool map. Last TLMC I had so many tech and irl issues when TLMC7 was announced I couldn't get anything right then this time it was "oh hey surprise TLMC8 is happening!" and everyone who didn't already have something was kinda screwed. Going back to the Art Contest comparison, for the annual Spectrum Art Contest everyone has all year to pick their best art they've made and submit it and everyone knows it will be chock full of masterpieces, but for smaller ones everyone starts off with an even playing field and focused guidelines and in both they have a team of judges considered experts in general or are connoisseurs and pioneers of a specific medium or subject matter. It's very unlike what the TLMC does now and goes away from what I've heard other map makers or fans suggest for future contests, but I think there are a lot of things that could be done that would make TLMCs better for map makers, TL, viewers, players, developers, and the game overall and other contest "formats" have shown a lot of success, even other games (Dota 2 comes to mind now) have success following seasons and themes for their player created content. In my eyes there has to be some better way to look at and design maps for the game that get played not just in ladder but in front of massive crowds in major events with gigantic prize pools too. | ||
| ||
