|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =)
I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public.
It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you.
Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
|
On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
You can PM the judges for feedback.
I don't think judges want to air all bad feedback, particularly those which are really bad. Some mapmakers might not like it.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
On November 12 2011 11:37 pdd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. You can PM the judges for feedback. I don't think judges want to air all bad feedback, particularly those which are really bad. Some mapmakers might not like it.
I thought about doing that, though I'm not sure why I should pursue it, since I'm not connected to any of the sides in this contest.
I merely made an observation with a side dish of suggestion.
|
Just like to say, Havens Lagoon has undergone some changes. It not only looks prettier, but a few physical map changes as well to deal with some problems I've found through feedback. You can see the newest changes and follow ones to come here.
|
On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation.
More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
|
On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
I think there is a misunderstanding. On the one hand it is not that 5-10 maps out of 150 didn't do something wrong. The seemed to fit best, provided what the judges searched. There should have been at least 20-30 maps that had a very good chance to be among the finalists I assume. On the other hand: everybody can show some initiative and just ask, if there seems to be few transparency... As far as I am concerned I think there was enough transparency and people ask a bit too much to hear why map x was chosen over map y, etc. But I think everybody got some feedback, when asked by PM.
Sure mapmakers want to provide sth to the community, but it is important people get recognition for what they have already achived with custom mammaking and more important: feedback. So the whole argument "community is not meant to cater the mapmaker" is going in the wrong direction really.
Therefor I want to motivate everybody who send something in and didn't get enough feedback to open a thread in this forums. Most people really like to help and tell you what one could do better. So if you need more feedback than the judges gave, just ask the mapping community - that is also part of the sc2 community btw 
|
On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map.
This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
|
On November 12 2011 22:07 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map. I think there is a misunderstanding. On the one hand it is not that 5-10 maps out of 150 didn't do something wrong. The seemed to fit best, provided what the judges searched. There should have been at least 20-30 maps that had a very good chance to be among the finalists I assume. On the other hand: everybody can show some initiative and just ask, if there seems to be few transparency... As far as I am concerned I think there was enough transparency and people ask a bit too much to hear why map x was chosen over map y, etc. But I think everybody got some feedback, when asked by PM. Sure mapmakers want to provide sth to the community, but it is important people get recognition for what they have already achived with custom mammaking and more important: feedback. So the whole argument "community is not meant to cater the mapmaker" is going in the wrong direction really. Therefor I want to motivate everybody who send something in and didn't get enough feedback to open a thread in this forums. Most people really like to help and tell you what one could do better. So if you need more feedback than the judges gave, just ask the mapping community - that is also part of the sc2 community btw
Oh I completely agree about feedback, definitely the community should be willing to provide as much feedback as possible on the maps. But my point was the community is not in debt to the mapmakers in terms of their decision, they aren't obligated to pick a particular map just because it looks prettier, they choose the criteria they want and judge the way they want what maps are the best. And the main priority should almost always be the community over the mapmaker, because without the community there would be no mapmakers. So thats why when people say they 'deserved to win' I feel they have their priorities the wrong way around, because its the community's opinion thats most important as they are the ones the maps are being made for, if there is a problem in the verdict it is a problem with the map not a problem with the judges/community.
|
On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map. This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process.
next time make the "art" not get in the way of "gameplay"!
map design is like architecture. its serves a purpose and the design process should go hand in hand with the game.
the map overview is what is seen first in the in-game menu, so you certainly cannot complain about the judges looking at it, too (in muc better resolution!). what do you expect with 150 maps?
next time make the layout the actual art and the visuals toned down enough so they do not get in the way.
Out of interest: could you send me a pm with a link to your image?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map. This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process. Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
|
On November 12 2011 23:14 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map. This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process. Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
Yeah it's the reason resumes are recommended to be only 1-2 pages, employers just don't have time to look at 500 resumes that are longer then that, it's unfortunate but its a constraint people have to recognize and cater for, same principle applies here for providing a simple clear image of the map.
|
On November 12 2011 23:14 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map. This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process. Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it.
To be honest, I thought the map pics were going to be used for organizational purposes and for "what was that map again, oh yeah" purposes. Not for direct judging purposes. This is a flaw of the system that should be spelled out in the future if used again, which, to be frank, shouldn't.
Not only are overview pictures often deceptive for the actual layout, but they can also mask how the aesthetic of a map really looks in game. Even though the aesthetic was not something you were making a primary concern (another thing that should have been more clear to avoid confusion and bannings), the in-game and (including mini-map to a degree) view should be the one that is judged if the aesthetic is to be evaluated.
Also, I find that a very odd choice of an analogy given the fact that you stated earlier that the aesthetic was not of primary (if any?) concern. In other words, this *was not* a fashion show, but rather an engineering expo. At such an event they would look at the blueprints and not just stand around outside the structure mumbling about how it looked like it might have been built. The "jacket" would have been removed for further inspection even if only briefly.
Understandably, you wanted to be efficient, but I still don't see how viewing the map files themselves would have taken all that much time. If you gave 5 minutes to each map (opening the file & cursory review), that's only 12.5 hours of work. Divided that by 3-6 people and you have something that can be managed in the course of a day even before doing any playtesting.
Please keep in mind that these critiques are in no way meant to discredit the judges or their selections, but are very serious suggestions for consideration for the next contest in order to promote a better sense of fairness all around. I am grateful to the judges and people involved for all the work that they did, but the system can be improved upon.
|
On November 13 2011 00:57 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 23:14 Plexa wrote:On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map. This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process. Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it. ... Not only are overview pictures often deceptive for the actual layout, but they can also mask how the aesthetic of a map really looks in game. Even though the aesthetic was not something you were making a primary concern (another thing that should have been more clear to avoid confusion and bannings), the in-game and (including mini-map to a degree) view should be the one that is judged if the aesthetic is to be evaluated. ...
From the contest anouncement message :
"How the map plays out is the most important part of the map. We will also be looking for originality in your maps (i.e. 16 base macro maps will have to be fairly amazing to stand out)."
I think that's quite clear... In addition, Plexa said multiple times in the threasd that Blizzard may select a map but request that the textures be "standardized" before inclusion in the ladder, so it was quite clear that gameplay would be the critical factor.
|
On November 13 2011 05:04 Apom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 00:57 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:On November 12 2011 23:14 Plexa wrote:On November 12 2011 22:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:On November 12 2011 21:50 XenoX101 wrote:On November 12 2011 10:44 greendestiny wrote:On November 12 2011 10:34 UndoneJin wrote:
The rages in this thread are priceless....
All and all, every single one of these maps have a few really interesting features. I think Haven's Lagoon, Ohana, and Citadel are my top few. I must say I'm a sucker for the Belshir tileset =) I really understand where the mapmakers' emotions are coming from. The one remark I have about this contest is that the map selection process should have been more transparent. At least the reasoning behind the rejected ones ought to have been made public. It takes a lot of hard work to make a map, and then you realize it was rejected, without knowing what was wrong with it. It's a personal hell, I tell you. Even if it's the worst criticism ever, it's still something a mapmaker can work with to refine his creation. More transparent? Read the last two paragraphs of the OP, he clearly states the criteria for why the judges chose the maps they chose, any further explanation is simply unnecessary. Mapmaking is not something linear that you always progressively get better at over time, maps are subjective entities after all, there is no absolute metric of 'enjoyment' that they can be measured against, and how important aesthetics are is a matter of opinion not fact. I can understand being upset about not winning despite spending X amount of time making maps in the past, but frankly that mentality has the relationship back to front. Mapmakers are meant to cater to the community, the community is not meant to cater to the mapmakers, if you understood the criteria and your map wasn't chosen it means you did something wrong, not that the judges were at fault, all they did was pick a map based on the clearly outlined criteria, if your map wasn't chosen the only possible conclusion is that your map didn't fit the criteria as well as another map. This is not necessarily true. In the feedback that I received, I was made aware that some maps did not make some of the preliminary cuts based on the map overview picture, which due to one factor or another were deceptive in relaying the map layout. I have given my response to this and suggested that in the future (if there should be a future map contest) that it be made explicit that at least one map image should be submitted with no art (or at least minimal art to differentiate cliff level/ramps/pathing) to aid in the initial sorting phase at the very least. A better solution, also mentioned in my reply, would be to open each map file in the editor (since they had the files) and give it a brief look both with the "in game view" and from a birds eye view. It really doesn't take that much longer to look at the files than at an image, and you get a much better idea of some of the potentially more deceptive elements. While the judges still may determine those elements to be lacking, not realizing what's going on with a map is certainly more the fault of the judging process. Opening 150 maps in the editor is very time consuming, for an efficient judging process it just wasn't feasible. Some authors submitted maps that were quite large and as a result the proportions of the map were distorted. I would think that the mapper should be responsible for providing an image which adequately represents the map. After all, why would we ask for an image if we intended to look at all maps via map file? An easy fix is included a 2000x2000+ px picture which would display the correct proportions. To draw an analogy, say at some fashion show there is some beautiful shirt covered up by a jacket and people critique the outfit for having a poor jacket. The designer replies that they need to look at the detail on the shirt etc. which the judges couldn't see as it was hidden, but at this stage he has already been excluded from contention. Representing your work well is just as important as the work behind it. ... Not only are overview pictures often deceptive for the actual layout, but they can also mask how the aesthetic of a map really looks in game. Even though the aesthetic was not something you were making a primary concern (another thing that should have been more clear to avoid confusion and bannings), the in-game and (including mini-map to a degree) view should be the one that is judged if the aesthetic is to be evaluated. ... From the contest anouncement message : "How the map plays out is the most important part of the map. We will also be looking for originality in your maps (i.e. 16 base macro maps will have to be fairly amazing to stand out)." I think that's quite clear... In addition, Plexa said multiple times in the threasd that Blizzard may select a map but request that the textures be "standardized" before inclusion in the ladder, so it was quite clear that gameplay would be the critical factor.
Yes, I agree, it was said that the gameplay part of the map would be considered first, hence why I am leaving the suggestion that in the future the announcement be more clear and/or the judging process be more rigorous. (My point about the aesthetics themselves should be pretty apparent it is a side note.) This does not say that they want the gameplay to be self-evident from the overview picture, this says that it will be primarily considered. If you want to do that and the overview is ambiguous you should look at the map file if you have it which they did. "Pretty clear" is not "crystal clear". Whatever Blizzard's standards of texturing are, the announcement simply said to only use one tileset which I did in each of my maps, it says nothing about how they should be used or to what degree they should simply outline cliffs. In other words, they did not come out and say that fancied up artwork/doodads/etc. would/might get in the way of their judging process. I'm not trying to justify my maps or the maps of those temp banned per se, but I would like to see *the next* contest be run a little better -- this is all hindsight, not a "complaint". Analogously, not every MLG has had the best production, but they have been getting better with our feedback. Again, this is simply feedback -- I'm not asking for a recount.
|
On November 13 2011 06:41 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
Yes, I agree, it was said that the gameplay part of the map would be considered first, hence why I am leaving the suggestion that in the future the announcement be more clear and/or the judging process be more rigorous.
How the map plays out is the most important part of the map.
Seems crystal clear to me. Do you know any other definition of "most important" that would make this statement unclear?
|
A) "Most Important" != "Only"
"Most Important" can mean that other considerations are "important" too, but not as much. It also does not specify the degree to which it is "most".
B) What are you even arguing?
C) I'm done arguing this point. You cannot convince me that things could not be improved upon for next time.
Edit: D) Just so it *is* crystal clear I am grateful to everyone involved in the judging process for the job that they did, especially Plexa for the organization. It was a *good* first time. (There, see? No need to be so defensive in their stead. They are big boys and quite capable of shouting me down themselves if my words have no merit.)
|
Haven's Lagoon looks like an amazing map. The # of attack paths are cool. The strategy changes depending on how many bases are taken. I like the close by air. It looks like the most interesting map in the whole pool. I hope it wins.
|
let's just say that it becomes the most important part of the map once it fullfills the minimum requirements for visuals, performance and whatever else.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Updated Daggoth Crater -> Korhal Compound.
|
On November 13 2011 13:09 Plexa wrote:
Updated Daggoth Crater -> Korhal Compound.
Thanks! I think the aesthetics should be a little bit easier on the eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
