MotM February Results - Page 5

On March 15 2012 17:24 Diamond wrote:
MotM and ESV have no relation besides we submit maps. Monitor is a mapper for us and runs-ish MotM but there is 0 overlap. For a long time ESV did not even enter maps in MotM.

On March 16 2012 09:31 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:

I stand corrected. I only assumed they were more closely tied together given the ESL Winter stuff. Apologies for the misrepresentation. I don't think this really changes my point though (fortunately ;}).

Diamond, does that mean that the whole ESL/IEM thing was not an ESV effort and only something that MOTM pushed for/was approached with?

On March 16 2012 02:06 chuky500 wrote:
I agree that teamless maps take more time to refine than when the mapper is in a team. But how many maps selected for Motm were actually adjusted after the ESL Motm tournament ? Motm could be more efficient if it was used to improve the quality of maps rather than being a marketing buzz. But the idea that team maps are already refined when they enter the contest too often stops mappers from updating them. And where are the maps now, who plays them ? That's why I suggest to aim the organization more towards the mapping community and improving the quality of maps.

The underlying idea is mapping teams need to stop looking down on other mappers and being condescending, like when neobowman says only a few percentage out of the top players are able to discuss strategy, and that if your map wasn't selected it's because it was terrible. Or when lefix starts giving a lesson on professionalism and the gaming industry. Take the biggest success of the mapping community, Cloud Kingdom. I took screenshots of the positional imbalances, mostly because both naturals aren't symmetrical :
+ Show Spoiler +
The first error was fixed by Blizzard but still remains on the ESV version that tournaments use. The second error comes from bad copy pasting, all minerals and gas are displaced by 1 square in each direction, resulting in a gas geiser needing 4 probes to be efficiently mined. There was a thread in the strategy section about this problem stating that such a gas earns 127 less gas at the time a regular gas is mined out.

So yes, please tell me about the professionalism of teams, how such monstruosities were left out by the most professional mappers out there ? Mapping teams need to stop blindly thinking that good mappers produce flawless maps. You need to focus on raw gameplay rather than the spaceshark position. I won't talk about the blurry look of the map in high settings but more generally about the aesthetics, and the disgrace of the WCG reskins told ESV shouldn't be so proud of themselves.

And please stop believing the only people that understand the game or watch a lot of Starcraft 2 on Teamliquid are the TPW and ESV teams. We all do. If you want I can link you to VODs of big games where bugs happened and were caused by the mappers. Most of the bugs would only have required a few clicks to fix if the mappers were aware of what causes these bugs. But apparently no one in mapping teams noticed them. And please don't tell me again that mistakes should remain.

On March 16 2012 13:02 Plexa wrote:

You forgot to mention that borealis has a big problem with the accessibility of the third

On March 16 2012 13:18 neobowman wrote:

I personally believe that it wouldn't be too hard to hold. As Toss, forcefields + units can hold the middle bases quite handily as can Terran with a planetary. Zerg doesn't need to expand to a safe location and can go mutaling. Even if you take the clock position bases, you can still forcefield the long paths.

But that's all theorycrafting and you'd need some solid testing on that. Which is not present so it's understandable that it didn't make it in.

On March 16 2012 23:27 Barrin wrote:

No.

While we're at it, air space (at least at the borders) should always be clearly visible (highly contrasting) on the minimap. And pathable area should never be confusable with unpathable area on the minimap.

On March 17 2012 02:35 Barrin wrote:
BTW, this is essentially why I no longer wish to be a judge:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242

If you are getting bored of mapmaking and feel there aren't enough options, PLEASE speak up in that thread.

I hate 8m2g. I hate it with passion.

I do not feel comfortable judging maps designed for something that I feel is fundamentally flawed, nor should you feel comfortable in me doing it either (not that I can't be objective in this sense, I'm just tired of doing it). If I were to continue judging, I would mostly pick maps I think would work good on 7m or 6m regardless of if they're 8m, and argue for them as if they were 7m. I will be making maps that are designed for 6m or 7m (mostly 7m), but I will be making 8m versions of them to compete in competitions.

Heretic, blasphemer. Call me what you want. I would like to say I don't care, but that's not true. This is actually quite sad IMO.