On September 14 2011 10:15 Antares777 wrote: A lot of very "standard" maps seem to be making it in. That makes me scared because my maps are everything but standard. I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, standard maps are what are known to work well and create balanced matches, just there are so many of them.
Guess we need to work harder then. If Standard maps are running rampant, we'll just need to work on finding a new, creative solution. I'm game. New topics for MotM would be a good start. Or, if the judges are up to it, perhaps a Map of the Fortnight, to allow for more map madness each month.
Ok after seeing so many comments about this issue and also receiving a PM concerning this I decided trying to clarify a bit more detailed. As I already stated in here earlier I'm a big fan of innovative mapconcepts and layouts myself. I'd like to see some crazy and new things in the top5 as much as you do. Now unfortunatly it's not as easy as you may think. You're saying that we should try out new things that aren't tested. That's a good thought. However the problem with this is that we are trying to get some maps into the pools of big, serious tournaments and guess what, they're not big fans of unproven concepts and features.
This is kinda the vicious circle we're fighting agains since the beginning. No professional testing means no clarification. No clarification means no interest from big organisations. No interest from big organisations means no professional testing. Of course we can test maps ourself but there's not a single GM player in our rows or to our order so in the end we can never be sure how it'll play out in professional matches, which is obviously really bad. Hence the easiest thing to make tournaments accept our winning maps is to not try any wild experiments.
It's no coincidence that the majority of the more experienced mapmakers (e.g. the TPW guys) usually go for rather generic mapconcepts. Those are proven to work, every pro knows how to play it and if there are still imbalances they can be ruled out fairly easily. People like this don't try to redefine maps, they're just looking for ways to take a standart layout and put a little bit of innovation into it, Emerald Jungle is a good example for this imo. So there's the reason it's a top 5 map. It has a balaced proven layout, it has a certain amound of innovation and it looks fantastic.
I'd like to make a comparison here. Put the topic of maps away for a minute. Let's think about strategies in SC2. People are sometimes coming up with totally wild, new strategies. Let's take Destinys Infestor play for instance. It's an incredibly good strategy. However from the first idea to the end product it had to go a long way. It had to be refined many times, made around a lot of problems that it may have had in the beginning. In the beginning it probably was close to a strategy that already existed but was a bit more extreme. Then after some time it became more and more extreme in the direction it is now.
Now take the same analogy for maps. If you have a completely new idea for a layout or just mapfeature and jump right to it, it's most certainly not gonna be well executed. It needs some time to develop and find out if there are any issues in professional play at all so it can be refined into the balanced awesome thing it's supposed to be. That is what's going on right now in the mapmaking community. People are trying to take something that's already tested well enough and push it towards new ideas. What I'm trying to say with this is that too big steps can hurt the process sometimes.
Now back to this months competition and reasoning behind some of the decicions. Let's say a map features some nice innovation that we actually see as well executed. It's just not enough. The map has to meet some general expectations. It may sound a bit shallow, but if a map has a clean and interesting aesthetical look it already gained some extra points. An other problem that many submitted maps have each month is space management. It's sometimes smaller things that add to the big picture.
Something that struck me when reading the comments concerned the map ESV Derelict. The map has imo a very original layout. I've never seen terrain placement quite like it so I'd consider the map rather innovative. However I've read multiple comments about how weird the map is and how stupid it will play out. So everyone is screaming for something like it but as soon as it's in the top5 it gets bashed by the same people. I don't really understand what you are asking for.
I'd also like to adress all those comments about LoS_Dark Matter, although I usually don't like to do this in public. So, many people have said that they want to see innovation and they don't see how this map didn't make it into the top5. So first of all I'd like to ask you: What exactly do you consider the big innovation on this map? What's different than on any other 4 player rotational symmetry map? Ok so we have the thing with the mainbase and natural expansion switched. Then we have the high ground on the opposite of the natural. Plus some LoS blocker at the main choke.
I gotta be honest with you, even though this is something we don't see on every map, it's not the reinvention of the wheel. I'd even say that it's exactly what I described above. It's a standard concept but pushed a bit towards innovation. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that this fact makes it bad in any way. Concerning originality it puts it on the same level as some of the top5 maps of this month, above of some, below some others. The reason why it didn't get picked was that there are just a lot of smaller issues.
The main is tiny if you consider that you need to leave space at the bottom of the 2 ramps. The intention here probably was that players can place their buildings at the natural. However as far as I know, you usually like your buildings as near to your main building as possible. Very small issue.
The high grounds opposite to the natural don't really have a good purpose. There's no expansion so all you can use it for is for abuse. - Defensive: Have 2 high grounds right next to the main choke to place your defences. Who is ever gonna attack into your 2 base turtle style? It's nearly impossible - Offensive: It's the perfect place for warp ins/Nydus/drops. It'd pretty much work the same as the high ground behind the natural of Scrap station, only that you'd be right in the main.
The LoSB at the main choke are a nice idea but it's pretty much impossible to predict how they would play out in a professional game. There's much potential for abuse here.
There's a positional imbalance with the expanding direction. A player who spawns counterclockwise to his opponent can only expand counter clockwise, since otherwise he'd expand right under the high ground of his opponent.
No matter which 3rd base you decide for, there's gonna be 2!! pathable cliffs next to it, ready to be abused.
The middle bases are far too vulnurable, not only because of the issue mentioned above. They are on low ground right next to the middle highground, equipped with a Xel'Naga Watchtower, which makes tank pushes, especially against Zerg, unbelievabely strong. If the tank push is even supported by a Planetary Fortress at the 3rd nearby, it's almost impossible for a Zerg to survive.
You could say that the idea behind the map was very good, however the execution was lacking some basic balance issues. And with that we come to the probably most common problem of innovative maps: Even if you implement cool original stuff, you can never forget about the most basic things only because it's a new style of map.
No but seriously, don't be lazy, read the whole thing, it took me way longer to write this than it will you to read.
I hope I was able to clarify a couple things and regain some faith in the MotM Organisation. We will still be looking for some innovative but also balanced maps in the future and hope you're not discouraged to work on new concepts in the future. It's not easy for us to please the mapmaking community, professional gamers and tournament organizers at the same time but we're trying our best to find a good compromise.
If I left something out you feel I should've mentioned or you would like to have some better insight into it, don't be afraid to ask about it. Our goal is to work together with the community as close as possible because you are what keeps us going.
I fully agree that balance is always the first priority when it comes to maps.
To ensure that a somewhat gimmicky design that Dark Matter have is balanced it tested a lot. Probally more then all other maps I ever made combined. Everything you mentioned as possible imba has proven to not be imba. You mention the highground at the 3rd which I intentionaly left pathable because it's a cool feature which if done right is perfectly fine. Have a look:
The third is not siegeable and the siege tank is in any position on the highground within roach range. It is perfectly possible to deal with.
I am aware that terran mech is extremely strong on this map but is at the same time counterable by the mobility of the zerg and have a look at how awesomely strong mutas are on this map. All the cliffs and the open space are a heaven for the mutas.
There are a lot of strong strategies on this map but they are evenly counterable by strong play of all races.
You mention the second highground at the main having no purpose. It is intentional to be a vulnerable spot to horrassment. Maps with an inbase nat tend to favor turtleing so I compensated by horrassment a very good option. I think that slowly wearing down your oponent can lead to more interesting games then going for a simple bust and while ppl have been saying that it is hard to deal with it is perfectly counterable and not imbalanced.
On September 14 2011 12:51 FlopTurnReaver wrote: You're saying that we should try out new things that aren't tested. That's a good thought. However the problem with this is that we are trying to get some maps into the pools of big, serious tournaments and guess what, they're not big fans of unproven concepts and features.
I thought that was the whole point of MoTM? To create new and exciting maps that will get played by GM level players. Then you are able to see how the map plays out. Bardiche, Derelict & Tenarsis are maps that are fairly new styles yet are balanced. I'm sure with enough play testing they could be great maps even though they all have a fairly new style to them. The major problem comes into play with Emerald Jungle & Overgrown. We have Standard 4player map & Shakuras Clone. We already know these styles of maps work and there is nothing really new about them at all. How are MoTM mappers suppose to learn how to try new things when it gets shut down because we haven't seen it before.
On September 14 2011 12:51 FlopTurnReaver wrote: The main is tiny if you consider that you need to leave space at the bottom of the 2 ramps. The intention here probably was that players can place their buildings at the natural. However as far as I know, you usually like your buildings as near to your main building as possible. Very small issue.
...
...
A lot of these seem very nitpicky and it's weird because if you look at maps in the top5 I could really go down the list and mark multiple maps off that have abusive terrain, pathable cliffs and bases that are far too vulnurable. Derelict for example will be hard to take a 3rd. The blue 3rd has high ground right next to it, making it super hard to defend. Taking the gold though makes it super choky and a tank push through there will make it almost impossible to hold. Overgrown is Shakuras 2.0 but completely zerg favored. Nats are more open, 3rds are more open, more attack paths, more air space.
At one point you say it'll be too hard to attack because a player turtling on 2 base will be too tough to crack, then you go about saying each expansion has too many cliffs to harass with. What? The whole 2 base turtle thing doesn't make any sense because any player on any map can sit on 2 base and turtle with ease.
Your statement about LoSB at the main choke kind of makes me upset. You say it's a nice idea but impossible to predict how it would play out. Soooo, why don't we see how it will play out in MoTM and if it ends up being amazing maybe it'll be a feature we'll see in more maps. Before TDA came out if the main wasn't on a higher ground then your natural we probably still wouldn't see that feature on maps. Yet LSPrime took a chance, kept the main & nat on the same cliff level and look how amazing that map turned out.
It's not just about Dark Matter either. Look at Taonas. The map is great, yet I feel the only reason it didn't get chosen was because of the mass usage of LoSBs. So now, everything about that map is nice, main/nat/3rd/4th are great, yet it's close enough to just 1 or 2 base if you want. The aesthetics are amazing as well, yet (i'm assuming here) because the tons of tons of LoSB it got voted as "imbalanced" and therefore we won't see any games on it. (Now, I know it's ESV, so there will probably be games on regardless, but yeah...) It's a new idea on a great map that because you guys think the professional programers won't like to play on it, or won't know hot o play on it, you don't let this unique map finish in the top.
On September 14 2011 12:51 FlopTurnReaver wrote: It's no coincidence that the majority of the more experienced mapmakers (e.g. the TPW guys) usually go for rather generic mapconcepts. Those are proven to work, every pro knows how to play it and if there are still imbalances they can be ruled out fairly easily. People like this don't try to redefine maps, they're just looking for ways to take a standart layout and put a little bit of innovation into it, Emerald Jungle is a good example for this imo. So there's the reason it's a top 5 map. It has a balaced proven layout, it has a certain amound of innovation and it looks fantastic.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather watch professional players play on innovated maps and see how they react to certain unique features about the maps then just watching them play Standard 4 player map version 37 and Shakuras 2.0.
I should say I have nothing against MoTM and I know it takes a lot of time and effort to go thru all the maps and judge them. I usually hang out on Skype with you all (although I haven't been very active the past week or two). It's just really irriating to me when there are all these unique, good looking maps, Damage Inc, Dark Matter & Taonis, that won't get a chance to be played because Standard 4 player map with layout that has worked for over a year now has 2 new paths added in steals the spotlight. And come on, it's a jungle map too, shouldn't that automatically have it's originally score tanked to 0?
I think that was an excellent post, FTR, thank for responding and putting so much effort and time into this. I think this is a great dialogue. I encourage fellow mappers to keep an air of respect and consideration; we've all worked hard and are passionate about this, and I love this group for it.
Of the current topic, I don't know DarkMatter enough to argue either way, so I'm not advocating for or against. It occurs to me, though, that a hole might have slipped into the evaluation process. To illustrate: party X creating maps and party Y is judging it. Party Y has gained their experience and eye for measuring maps based on the current methodologies. If party X is creating relatively standard maps with standard dynamics, the system works well: party Y is an expert in such things and therefore serves well as a judge.
But, if party X is creating new dynamics that are a two steps away from the standard, dynamics that are unique (I.E. not done before), party Y is not an expert at these specific dynamics. Y still has all the knowledge and skill they learned for standard maps, and can probably pick up and understand new dynamics quite well. But, party Y cannot eyeball it. They cannot know how the unfamiliar dynamics work without seeing it in action.
In simplified terms: if I am judging a map and the map maker is forging new territory, I don't know that territory. I have to go figure it out before I can judge it.
Based on this, it may be something the MotM team needs to consider. If we're doing stuff never before seen, how can you understand it without seeing it in action?
If Archvil3 has spent 50+ hours testing the map's new dynamic (and assuming the other issues aren't present) and has already identified and tested most/all the concerns with the map, and it is rejected because the judges don't understand it and have not requested replays or a write up on it... do you see what I'm getting at here? Some things are universal; knowledge of those things do lend the MotM team to judge innovative maps. But how can anyone judge something they do not understand?
With innovative maps, it is inevitable that there will be things that judges do not understand.
This is a good thing, but it presents some challenges. Judges cannot spend time investigating every dynamic. That is a silly and impossible expectation. So it's a matter of thinning the herd, I imagine. Some maps can be reject on their extremely poor aesthetics, others because of other glaring basic flaws. But what about those maps that show a lot of love and score well almost everywhere else?
One option is that a dialog is opened up between the mapper and one of the MotM, or the judges highlight their concerns before the judging so the mappers can respond with their findings from testing. Again, these are only for maps that would be viable in every other way, and really showcase the love and commitment of the mapper. We don't want you burning effort in every direction, that helps no one.
Maybe some of these ideas can help. Ultimately, the goal of this post is to help MotM be more awesome, provoking thought, and addressing concerns. Please view it in that light. Thanks for your ear, MotM guys. <3s
@SidianTheBard and @FoxyMayhem Excellent posts, you say a lot of things I would have said but better
I hope nobody is misunderstanding my criticism: I 100% respect all the effort of the judges to test these maps and judge them fairly for their balance, aesthetics etc This is hard unpaid work and without these guys the mapmaking community would be a lot weaker and more meaningless!
I also have tons of respect for the mapmakers of these "standard" maps. I have been doing some mapmaking myself and know how tiring it can be at times, but these guys probably work at least twice as hard to make the most balanced and best looking maps they can, and even if I consider the result boring I know how much work and passion went into it and I'm happy for every mapmaker who makes top5!
@FlopTurnReaver I appreciate that you take your time to clarify some things. This post doesn't really give me hope tho. Imo you should really see MotM as more of a testing environment, especially now that you have the ESL partnership. I mean now you are really a notable organization and with Rotti and MrBitter casting hopefully a NA+EU tournament and the showmatches they set up, I think you get even better feedback than before. I'm not saying your top5 should consist of crazy maps only, I think 2-3 maps that are just totally standard is fine (I predicted or wished Overgrown, Concrete Dreams and Tenarsis would make top5). But you are playing it too safe imo and that's why I'm losing interest in this organization. Cause when I think of new exciting maps I think of GSL and especially ESV Weeklies, not MotM anymore... (which is even somewhat ironic I think).
Consider this: If an innovative map like Taonas or Dark Matter has some imbalances like the ones you pointed out it can be tested, discussed and fixed in the next version of the map. If a standard map is balanced but too boring and common there is no next version that fixes that. Maps like Terminus, Testbug, Bel'Shir, Crevasse and Tal'Darim all were new and innovative when they came out and they all needed to be fixed cause of some smaller imbalances.
I don't think this it's a big problem if a well thought out concept can get top5 despite some small imbalances and afterwards is fixed.
When you started you had categories for balance and aesthetics, but also for originality and fun and I thought that was the correct way to judge a map
MotM now receive so many good maps it's frustrating to only have a top5, this month there were at least 12 maps that could've been picked so you could have a totaly different top5 and nothing to complain about it. Maybe it's time for MotM to change the format. Most tournaments have over 10 maps in their pool, ofc they use standards and well known maps so it's easy for players, so maybe MotM could increase the pool to 8 with the possibility for players to veto 1 map, or have a top5 used for the tournament and 2 or 3 more used only for the finals. Also please bring back the special awards, and show those maps too in special showmatches.
Some of you make it sound as if 'standard' maps are destined to produce boring games. But i think that couldn't be further from the truth. When you complain about the lack of testing on the 'innovative' maps, i wonder who actually took the time to Test the 'standard' ones to be able to label them as boring maps. I personally have attempted many experimental maps in my early days of mapmaking. But i came to the conclusion that making something different doesn't automatically make it better. Most of the times that's simply not the case. There is a reason why the standard is the way it is and there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to it. And in fact i find it very challenging to come up with yet another original layout without breaking any of the basic rules and keeping flaws to a minimum.
And please don't misunderstand my post. I don't oppose innovation at all, in fact i secretly want new ideas to succeed and be accepted by the community and open up new possibilities for us mapmakers. But it is a slow process.
Also, i think the idea to include optional replays of testgames should be encouraged
I understand it takes time to judge maps, but it does take more time to make a map, texture and balance it. You say a standard map takes more time to balance than a creative one but it's just wrong, because standard is easier to balance. We don't throw something in the map editor then send it to you expecting to make it to the Motm tournament and see how it plays.
As a mapper I feel cheated because the contest said :
We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!
and thanks to FlopTurnReaver's post I see it's not the case and it's actually the contrary. Motm want to replace standard maps in tournaments with other standard maps with the same gameplay.
We should organize our own tournament with original maps because of the divergence of point of view with the organisation. Or just sit-and-goes with very few players. I ran 3 last year with custom melee maps ands they were fun.
Bottom line : Motm will probably never take the risks they should.
edit: nobody complains about maps used in tournament being unbalanced, so why does Motm focus about the balance of existing maps.
Admitting that you will not select innovative maps is pretty damning. You pretty much loss a lot of your reputation for allowing two self-proclaimed map clones to make as finalists; even moreso that they are both TPW maps. But I take it Overgrown and Tenarsis falls under 'playing it safe' and opting for the 'tried and true'. Atleast they look pretty to you.
For whichever tournament will be using your map pool, I am atleast glad we still have the likes of GSL, MLG, etc, who are not afraid to try new and varied maps.
On September 14 2011 20:39 chuky500 wrote: I understand it takes time to judge maps, but it does take more time to make a map, texture and balance it. You say a standard map takes more time to balance than a creative one but it's just wrong, because standard is easier to balance. We don't throw something in the map editor then send it to you expecting to make it to the Motm tournament and see how it plays.
As a mapper I feel cheated because the contest said :
We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!
and thanks to FlopTurnReaver's post I see it's not the case and it's actually the contrary. Motm want to replace standard maps in tournaments with other standard maps with the same gameplay.
1. We should organize our own tournament with original maps because of the divergence of point of view with the organisation. Or just sit-and-goes with very few players. I ran 3 last year with custom melee maps ands they were fun.
2. Bottom line : Motm will probably never take the risks they should.
edit: nobody complains about maps used in tournament being unbalanced, so why does Motm focus about the balance of existing maps.
I'm not sure what you want... do you want a few games on some custom maps? Or do you want to create longlasting partnerships with important tournament organizations to establish a pipeline for map creation --> tournament usage.
1. Believe me, in no way am I trying to disparage you, but... how many real pros played in your tournaments? Were they casted by an MLG caster and viewed thousands of times? I don't need to ask if it was fun, you said so. And playing the community's maps is fun, and it'd be easy to spend much more time just doing that. But that doesn't mean any of the millions of starcraft fan will ever get anything out of it.
2. The timing of this is just silly. It is at this point exactly that we can start to say... all the adherence to being "acceptable" for use by pros is paying off in the form of wider community recognition and significant relationships with tournaments. Exactly because of this--which is the knot of all the criticism at the moment--MotM is in a position to make their own clout. Not now, not next month, but maybe next year..? MotM could be a regular contributor to tournament map pools, perhaps even the blizzard ladder. Do you realize how awesome it is that that means anyone could make a new map any given future month and it would show up in pro matches that are viewed by millions of people? More to the point, once MotM is viewed as an inculcated body of authority, and once the game is a bit older, the room for including truly innovative maps will only increase. Complaining that we still don't see that many "new" maps and probably never will is like saying "my fast expansion hasn't started paying off yet, it probably never will".
chuky, I chose to rebut your post because it was a convenient way to structure what I wanted to say, it's not out of anything personal. I completely empathize with the first bit you said quoting the encouragement of creativity. You have to realize that that can never come at the cost of good design, balance, and polish. Especially not during this phase in the development of mapmaking work from a corner of the forum for hobbyists into an engine of esports.
I think one thing that people are misunderstanding is what the goal of MotM really is.
Goal #1: Is it to get user made maps into high level tournaments in the future? Goal #2: Is it to allow people to get high level testing on new map concepts? (btw i have no idea what the actual goal is myself... but these seem somewhat likely)
I feel like to accomplish the first goal, revamped standard maps are the way to go because high level players would be more accepting and comfortable playing on them. Which in turn makes them more attractive to tournaments. I think that after this is accomplished the second goal will be much easier because MotM would have more credibility. They could say "look here we've made X maps which are used in Y tournaments. trust us that this innovative map will work out." I think that in order for MotM to grow and gain a wider audience goal #1 should be completed first, followed by goal #2. Also it should be taken into account that this game is still only one year old with two more expansions to come. So what is innovative now could become imbalanced in the future. But what is standard/blizz map remake is less likely to become out-dated.
I can almost guarantee you if you have a prize pool, you can get programers to play whatever map you want. TBH, if MoTM took away their prize pool would we ever see DDE again? What about Ddoro? Chances are slim because why spend your time learning/playing on new maps without a chance to win anything.
So everybody who says "well, we need standard maps so programmers will want to play on them" just makes me laugh. Most of these players won't even play the map before they play it in the tournament, hence why you get so many of them that say "oh I didnt know that was there, oh this map is neat look at this, etc etc etc" during their matchup. I bet I could take a shit on a map, make it completely imbalanced & 1 sided and as long as I say the winner gets $100 bucks I will get professional GM players that will play it.
MoTM SHOULD be the testing grounds. It SHOULD be where we take a giant leap instead of small baby steps. We SHOULD be throwing out super unique maps with never seen before features. This will allow us to know what works and what doesn't. That's why it's crazy that Taonis didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Dark Matter didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Damage INC didn't get it.
On September 15 2011 00:32 SidianTheBard wrote: I can almost guarantee you if you have a prize pool, you can get programers to play whatever map you want. TBH, if MoTM took away their prize pool would we ever see DDE again? What about Ddoro? Chances are slim because why spend your time learning/playing on new maps without a chance to win anything.
So everybody who says "well, we need standard maps so programmers will want to play on them" just makes me laugh. Most of these players won't even play the map before they play it in the tournament, hence why you get so many of them that say "oh I didnt know that was there, oh this map is neat look at this, etc etc etc" during their matchup. I bet I could take a shit on a map, make it completely imbalanced & 1 sided and as long as I say the winner gets $100 bucks I will get professional GM players that will play it.
MoTM SHOULD be the testing grounds. It SHOULD be where we take a giant leap instead of small baby steps. We SHOULD be throwing out super unique maps with never seen before features. This will allow us to know what works and what doesn't. That's why it's crazy that Taonis didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Dark Matter didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Damage INC didn't get it.
Players will play any map in a map pool of a turny, but that dosnt mean turnament organaizer would want to hear complaints from players that they were forced to play a map they thnk is bad.
You seem to think a new map concept could kill Motm if the layout wasn't a standard one, but Stacraft 2 has a very refined and balanced gameplay that allows a lot of freedom in map layouts.
For example if I made a 2 player map with just the close positions of Taldarim Altar or Delta Quadrant, it would look imbalanced because one player would have his natural close to his opponent's main. But it is actually what happens 66% of the time on 4 player rotational symmetry maps and it's not that imbalanced.
Another example : Dark Matter seems to have a tiny main, and that's a feature my map Back to Back also has so I can relate. The goal is to encourage players to spread their buildings on the natural expansion because it's safer to build in the natural. So over time, your natural becomes your main. This really adds depth to the game because a player can force the other one to delay his tech until he's taken his natural, because it's safer. Also because of the fact you're forced to spread your buildings, players don't automatically lose the game when they lose an expansion because they still have many buildings left. Again this only makes games more interresting. Don't believe newer concepts haven't been tested thoroughly and that they are competing in the Motm just to hear feedback. Newer concepts take a lot more time to refine than default layouts.
The problem with Motm isn't the plan for the future, everyone agrees tournaments need more variety with their maps. The problem is the jury that picks the Motm winners is made of "solid mappers" (as opposed to "innovative mappers") and thus they tend to pick maps they can relate to, it's that simple. If you change the jury and put "innovative mappers" that can think outside the box and have perspective on the game then you'll have more variety in the maps. After all that's what tournaments look for.
If a protoss player wins because the maps were protoss favored, players are going to see it as a sham. It's not about their skill anymore, and the odds are unfairly stacked against/for them. Credibility, clout, and respect are at stake, especially in these early stages.
The "foot in the door" method (wherein MotM gains notoriety and clout by delivering extremely refined maps, and then introducing more innovative ones) is a good one, but I think its like eating peas with a knife: you can do it, it works, but it really doesn't take advantage of the tools at your disposal.
I do not think that concepts should be proven in MotM. They should be proven in testing (and, perhaps after they've proven solid there, entered in a smaller sub-tournament that is designed just for the more extreme maps). These behave as gates, filtering out bad maps or mapping errors and allowing mappers to bring their balance polish even further. This requires that the MotM team take a look at the results of testing, but I believe can address many of the concerns outlined by FTR.
So, MotM team, how does something like this sound: "Wacky Worlds Tournament (WWT) Prize Pool: $20 Time Period: Monthly Map pool size: 3-5 Player Size: 8-16 Format: Bo3, Bo5"
I have not run a tournament before, is this viable?
I feel the tournament is a longer-term thing, and thorough testing and dialogues with the MotM team can efficiently take its place right now. I've tested Nightmare Hollow for more than 50 hours, and by the end of today I will have observerd several dozen games with Grandmasters. It's taken months, but I am really committed to making a knock-out map. Hopefully my studying this map will be taken into consideration at some point, should maps be allowed back in at any point.
Which, considering the main problem with the innovative maps is the need for refinement, I believe they should be permitted again at some point, giving us the opportunity to refine.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HJcm1.jpg)
