On May 02 2012 06:27 DYEAlabaster wrote:There is no rule for "being positive", rather, just one for "not being negative without reason".
As I said above, I'm critical of maps because I want better maps. I'm not going to sugarcoat bad maps/ideas/teams/etc. I don't think that's necessary and I think it ruins the legitimacy of the complaint in the long run. If you talk to me personally about maps (which I encourage), then my all means, I will have a measured discussion about the maps.
Edit- About the maps- I like Afterglow, I really do. I also like Morrows map as an experiment, though it feels a bit unrefined. Other than that, I feel these maps are a tad boring.
So I am curious, which maps would you have picked instead?
I didn't submit a map this month so I can't be biased right? Here's my thoughts/feedback on these top 5 maps.
Afterglow: First and Foremost I like the aesthetics of this map. It looks nice. Although I think the high ground middle looks a little empty. Is anybody else bothered by the mineral fields and how each one is identical (for the most part) haha. I'm not sure I would rank this map as #1 but it definitely should be top 3 material. It does seem like a fairly standard mirrored 2 player map. I know monitor has said it countless times himself but all his maps are for the most part, super standard and honestly that's why they work. I think it'll be curious to see him design a map that isn't standard and see how he does. Besides the middle feeling very empty I also dislike the straight path on the top of the map (from 4th to 4th). Sure there are some LoSB but otherwise it's just a straight boring path from Point A to Point B.
Overall it's a solid map though and no doubt deserves a top spot.
Tanzanite This was actually my favorite map that was submitted. It's easily the best map visually. It's amazing that timetwister can go from a very shitty looking beach theme (honestly the first draft of Haven's Lagoon liked like shit) to this piece of art. I like that there are multiple different playstyles you can do, zergs and toss will most likely expand horizontally where as a terran might take the forward base and pfort it up. I would like if the corner bases were on low ground because right now every base is on the same cliff level besides the main so it might seem kind of stale. I'm actually a little bummed this map didn't get #1, but hey, Top 2 is still pretty boss.
Peaks of Alamar Screw you Wrl because whenever I say this map name I want to say Amalar (which was a badass game imo!) but noooo, this is Alamar! haha. Anyway, visually this map looks great, most of wrl's maps do. You and your custom textures are perfect. I'm glad you changed the 4th to a lowground base because it adds some more flavor to the map, plus the pathway behind the 4th is great for harass oppurtunities. Honestly it reminds me of the 3rd on XNC and how many unique strategies revolved around moving your army back through that pathway. My biggest concern with this map is the distance from your natural to third and how many paths get opened up when you take it. There is a ton of distance between the two bases and pretty much every path on the map gets opened up and therefore it could very well be a complete nightmare to defend. As much as I love the way you used Xel'naga watchtowers, I do wish there was more space to manover your army around that wouldn't get seen by them.
Firestorm Probably the most unique map out of the top 5. I like the backdoor with the mineral wall, it'd be interesting to see how that plays out. As much as I love the main & natural being on the same cliff level, I still don't think it's a good idea. I'm almost wondering if you really need 4 watchtowers though and if 1 would be enough. With those watchtowers you can pretty much see every attack path on the map, which makes me believe zerg is going to be unstoppable. I also think there are positionally imbalances quite heavily. I suppose limiting it to cross positions only isn't a problem though. I do agree the red rock/sand kinda makes the map look not as nice as I'd normally like it to.
Dodongo I'm sorry but I guess I just don't see the hype for this map at all. Of course I haven't played on it so this is strictly just looking at the overview but 1/2 base backdoor natural with a Huuuge d-rock wall. Vulnerable out of base natural (or 3rd) Visuals are just real bad, although that's not too much of a problem because that can be an easy fix. No watchtowers? No LoSB? The idea to the 4th with the gold minerals is cool but why not just use rocks?
Anyway, that's about it. If I think of any other sweet ideas/feedback I'm sure I'll either edit this post or just make a brand new one. Congratulations to all the winners!
On May 02 2012 06:51 SidianTheBard wrote: Peaks of Alamar Screw you Wrl because whenever I say this map name I want to say Amalar (which was a badass game imo!) but noooo, this is Alamar! haha. Anyway, visually this map looks great, most of wrl's maps do. You and your custom textures are perfect. I'm glad you changed the 4th to a lowground base because it adds some more flavor to the map, plus the pathway behind the 4th is great for harass oppurtunities. Honestly it reminds me of the 3rd on XNC and how many unique strategies revolved around moving your army back through that pathway. My biggest concern with this map is the distance from your natural to third and how many paths get opened up when you take it. There is a ton of distance between the two bases and pretty much every path on the map gets opened up and therefore it could very well be a complete nightmare to defend. As much as I love the way you used Xel'naga watchtowers, I do wish there was more space to manover your army around that wouldn't get seen by them.
Thanks for the feedback. In response:
I didn't actually use any custom textures on this one, as I wanted to challenge myself to do it LEGIT this time.
The third is a fairly average distance from the natural, and can be connected via 2 well-placed tumors. The position also means you are effectively expanding away from your opponent. Also, even though there are a lot of routes leading to your Nat/Third, they all converge on single choke points, making them reasonably easy to defend, but scouting is extremely important to know when and where attacks are going to come from.
The extremely defensive nature of the towers is because of the map complexity. You need to be able to keep an eye on both platforms, because you can only reasonably defend one at a time. Chances are, also, that each player will control the tower on their side, as such, there is a fairly quick path to avoid the sight of your opponent's tower by going through their fourth.
Anyway, I'm glad you like it and I'm happy to have made the top 3 again! I'll be really busy over the next few months so this might be my last map for a while.
On May 02 2012 06:27 DYEAlabaster wrote:There is no rule for "being positive", rather, just one for "not being negative without reason".
As I said above, I'm critical of maps because I want better maps. I'm not going to sugarcoat bad maps/ideas/teams/etc. I don't think that's necessary and I think it ruins the legitimacy of the complaint in the long run. If you talk to me personally about maps (which I encourage), then my all means, I will have a measured discussion about the maps.
Edit- About the maps- I like Afterglow, I really do. I also like Morrows map as an experiment, though it feels a bit unrefined. Other than that, I feel these maps are a tad boring.
So I am curious, which maps would you have picked instead?
Well, i can't speak for which maps I would have chosen because I have now ay of knowing which maps were submitted.
But that brings two things to my attention about the nature of the contest in general:
1- What does it bring? 2- How popular is it?
What I mean by these two things is simple- I don't really see any longevity to the maps that win the contest- or at least, no real "prize" of winning the contest. I know that Artifice, for example, was used for a time by IPL, among some other maps that were previous winners, but for the most part, the contest seems to, sadly, be contained within this little subforum. I would love to see it evolve into something much bigger and brighter in the future. For that, I think it would have to be less frequent, maybe something that is done once/quarter. If it's rare enough to be craved, but frequent enough to be remembered, I think many more submissions, organizations, etc, will be turning an eye here.
I loved the TLMC, and 3/5 of the winners are now in ladder/gsl/tournaments/etc. It was far and away the most successful endeavour of mappers into the public we have seen. While I love the idea of a tournament for mappers, the admins themselves have admitted to disorganization and problems in the past. It would be nice to see something akin to the TLMC (maybe not such a huge scale, but something with a first-page-feature, etc), rather than small monthly tournaments.
It must dampen the probability of good maps too, as many teams try and try and try to crank out good maps in the time allotted, meaning for a lower quality of maps overall and less top tier maps in general.
That being said, of the maps that I have seen submitted, Afterglow takes it. But again, I can't know which maps are submitted and which are not (Crux Whirwind is by far the best map made this year, for instance, and possibly since Daybreak)
Hope that helps, I know it's a bit of a roundabout answer
On May 02 2012 05:24 DYEAlabaster wrote: Again, yeah, no. Still wondering who the judges are.
Judge lineup for April: Barrin - Author of ‘Breadth of Gameplay in SC2’ Superouman - ESV Mapmaker, creator of Cloud kingdom and Sanshorn Mist lefix - Founder of The Planetary Workshop, creator of Odyssey Nightmarjoo - TLMC Judge, Starcraft BW/SC2 mapmaking scene veteran Ragoo - TPW Mapmaker, creator of Twilight Peaks and Loki II
Seriously stop trolling, it's getting annoying now
lefix Co-Founder of The Planetary Workshop, creator of Odyssey just to make that clear
On May 02 2012 06:27 DYEAlabaster wrote:There is no rule for "being positive", rather, just one for "not being negative without reason".
As I said above, I'm critical of maps because I want better maps. I'm not going to sugarcoat bad maps/ideas/teams/etc. I don't think that's necessary and I think it ruins the legitimacy of the complaint in the long run. If you talk to me personally about maps (which I encourage), then my all means, I will have a measured discussion about the maps.
Edit- About the maps- I like Afterglow, I really do. I also like Morrows map as an experiment, though it feels a bit unrefined. Other than that, I feel these maps are a tad boring.
So I am curious, which maps would you have picked instead?
Well, i can't speak for which maps I would have chosen because I have now ay of knowing which maps were submitted.
But that brings two things to my attention about the nature of the contest in general:
1- What does it bring? 2- How popular is it?
What I mean by these two things is simple- I don't really see any longevity to the maps that win the contest- or at least, no real "prize" of winning the contest. I know that Artifice, for example, was used for a time by IPL, among some other maps that were previous winners, but for the most part, the contest seems to, sadly, be contained within this little subforum. I would love to see it evolve into something much bigger and brighter in the future. For that, I think it would have to be less frequent, maybe something that is done once/quarter. If it's rare enough to be craved, but frequent enough to be remembered, I think many more submissions, organizations, etc, will be turning an eye here.
I loved the TLMC, and 3/5 of the winners are now in ladder/gsl/tournaments/etc. It was far and away the most successful endeavour of mappers into the public we have seen. While I love the idea of a tournament for mappers, the admins themselves have admitted to disorganization and problems in the past. It would be nice to see something akin to the TLMC (maybe not such a huge scale, but something with a first-page-feature, etc), rather than small monthly tournaments.
It must dampen the probability of good maps too, as many teams try and try and try to crank out good maps in the time allotted, meaning for a lower quality of maps overall and less top tier maps in general.
That being said, of the maps that I have seen submitted, Afterglow takes it. But again, I can't know which maps are submitted and which are not (Crux Whirwind is by far the best map made this year, for instance, and possibly since Daybreak)
Hope that helps, I know it's a bit of a roundabout answer
On May 02 2012 06:27 DYEAlabaster wrote:There is no rule for "being positive", rather, just one for "not being negative without reason".
As I said above, I'm critical of maps because I want better maps. I'm not going to sugarcoat bad maps/ideas/teams/etc. I don't think that's necessary and I think it ruins the legitimacy of the complaint in the long run. If you talk to me personally about maps (which I encourage), then my all means, I will have a measured discussion about the maps.
Edit- About the maps- I like Afterglow, I really do. I also like Morrows map as an experiment, though it feels a bit unrefined. Other than that, I feel these maps are a tad boring.
So I am curious, which maps would you have picked instead?
Well, i can't speak for which maps I would have chosen because I have now ay of knowing which maps were submitted.
But that brings two things to my attention about the nature of the contest in general:
1- What does it bring? 2- How popular is it?
What I mean by these two things is simple- I don't really see any longevity to the maps that win the contest- or at least, no real "prize" of winning the contest. I know that Artifice, for example, was used for a time by IPL, among some other maps that were previous winners, but for the most part, the contest seems to, sadly, be contained within this little subforum. I would love to see it evolve into something much bigger and brighter in the future. For that, I think it would have to be less frequent, maybe something that is done once/quarter. If it's rare enough to be craved, but frequent enough to be remembered, I think many more submissions, organizations, etc, will be turning an eye here.
I loved the TLMC, and 3/5 of the winners are now in ladder/gsl/tournaments/etc. It was far and away the most successful endeavour of mappers into the public we have seen. While I love the idea of a tournament for mappers, the admins themselves have admitted to disorganization and problems in the past. It would be nice to see something akin to the TLMC (maybe not such a huge scale, but something with a first-page-feature, etc), rather than small monthly tournaments.
It must dampen the probability of good maps too, as many teams try and try and try to crank out good maps in the time allotted, meaning for a lower quality of maps overall and less top tier maps in general.
That being said, of the maps that I have seen submitted, Afterglow takes it. But again, I can't know which maps are submitted and which are not (Crux Whirwind is by far the best map made this year, for instance, and possibly since Daybreak)
Hope that helps, I know it's a bit of a roundabout answer
Does not explain your first post in this thread. It looks a lot like you did not like the result of the contest. You should be able to find all submissions in the submission thread...
In my opinion, Peaks should have taken it, but they were all good. Still unsure about 4gate on Firestorm.
As Ironman said, it would be nice to get some general feedback, but obviously because of constraints on time and energy, maybe just the maps that the judges picked as their top 10? It would be really nice for mapmaker growth.
Hi, I play this game at a fairly high level. I've been top masters since season 1. The fact that the 4th and 5th place maps were 4th and 5th place over the other contenders makes me really wonder if the people voting actually looked at the maps or just voted for their friends. I know several maps submitted are A LOT better than those maps... What's up with this???
One thing that I have learned from over a year of MotM is that people have very different opinions on maps Even when you have one of the most qualified judge lineups like MotM usually does, there's always going to be that one judge who absolutely loves a map while another judge will think the absolute opposite. We spend many days discussing our thoughts, so it is surprise to me that there are alot more people out there who might disagree about some choices. It is just not possible to meet everyone's taste
On May 02 2012 08:16 KeithONLINE wrote: Hi, I play this game at a fairly high level. I've been top masters since season 1. The fact that the 4th and 5th place maps were 4th and 5th place over the other contenders makes me really wonder if the people voting actually looked at the maps or just voted for their friends. I know several maps submitted are A LOT better than those maps... What's up with this???
I would say we should trust them about Morrows map. It is Morrow after all, he knows a lot more about maps and the game in general that anybody else in this subforum.
On May 02 2012 06:27 DYEAlabaster wrote:There is no rule for "being positive", rather, just one for "not being negative without reason".
As I said above, I'm critical of maps because I want better maps. I'm not going to sugarcoat bad maps/ideas/teams/etc. I don't think that's necessary and I think it ruins the legitimacy of the complaint in the long run. If you talk to me personally about maps (which I encourage), then my all means, I will have a measured discussion about the maps.
Edit- About the maps- I like Afterglow, I really do. I also like Morrows map as an experiment, though it feels a bit unrefined. Other than that, I feel these maps are a tad boring.
So I am curious, which maps would you have picked instead?
Well, i can't speak for which maps I would have chosen because I have now ay of knowing which maps were submitted.
But that brings two things to my attention about the nature of the contest in general:
1- What does it bring? 2- How popular is it?
What I mean by these two things is simple- I don't really see any longevity to the maps that win the contest- or at least, no real "prize" of winning the contest. I know that Artifice, for example, was used for a time by IPL, among some other maps that were previous winners, but for the most part, the contest seems to, sadly, be contained within this little subforum. I would love to see it evolve into something much bigger and brighter in the future. For that, I think it would have to be less frequent, maybe something that is done once/quarter. If it's rare enough to be craved, but frequent enough to be remembered, I think many more submissions, organizations, etc, will be turning an eye here.
I loved the TLMC, and 3/5 of the winners are now in ladder/gsl/tournaments/etc. It was far and away the most successful endeavour of mappers into the public we have seen. While I love the idea of a tournament for mappers, the admins themselves have admitted to disorganization and problems in the past. It would be nice to see something akin to the TLMC (maybe not such a huge scale, but something with a first-page-feature, etc), rather than small monthly tournaments.
It must dampen the probability of good maps too, as many teams try and try and try to crank out good maps in the time allotted, meaning for a lower quality of maps overall and less top tier maps in general.
That being said, of the maps that I have seen submitted, Afterglow takes it. But again, I can't know which maps are submitted and which are not (Crux Whirwind is by far the best map made this year, for instance, and possibly since Daybreak)
Hope that helps, I know it's a bit of a roundabout answer
Does not explain your first post in this thread. It looks a lot like you did not like the result of the contest. You should be able to find all submissions in the submission thread...
Yeah, the submissions thread was my own mental retardation, my bad.
And I didn't like the results of the contest and I was explaining why. It's not that I have particular stock in any one mapper over another, I just feel that the quality of maps is lower with contests so often, is all.
I would also like to give some background of my map, Dodongo. It's no suprise that many of you dislike the aesthetic work, since they are not what most of you are used too. This was a deliberate decision. For me, the purpose of textures are to bring readability to the map (for competitive play), and by this i mean a clear distinction between the cliff levels and a clean look.
My goal when creating aesthetics of a map meant for competitive play, is not to make something mindblowing, but rather create aesthetics that goes by unnoticed by the players (not distracting). Textures or doodads/effects should not affect gameplay negatively. Another important thing is the performance of the map, keeping doodads and effects to a minimum.
I know im in the minority when i say this, many of you will problably have a laugh, but i do believe that the melee mapping community puts too much emphasis on aesthetics. For competitive play i do believe there should be more focus on readability, performance and layout. The layout of a map should speak for the map, not the aesthetics (a re-skinned metalopolis is still metalopolis).
On May 02 2012 06:51 SidianTheBard wrote:
Dodongo I'm sorry but I guess I just don't see the hype for this map at all. Of course I haven't played on it so this is strictly just looking at the overview but 1/2 base backdoor natural with a Huuuge d-rock wall. Vulnerable out of base natural (or 3rd) Visuals are just real bad, although that's not too much of a problem because that can be an easy fix. No watchtowers? No LoSB? The idea to the 4th with the gold minerals is cool but why not just use rocks?
I wish that you would've atleast checked out the map before commenting on it. Your comments regarding Dodongo doesn't really bring anything right now since you havn't even tested it. I think you should atleast check it out in-game first, since you've now missed some features of the map. I also don't believe that every map needs watchtowers or LoSB (however, Dodongo do have LoSB). As for the mineral block instead of destructible rocks, the mineral wall offers even more defenders advantage then the destructible rocks.
One last thing, this hype you are talking about, i most've missed it completly.
On May 02 2012 08:16 KeithONLINE wrote: Hi, I play this game at a fairly high level. I've been top masters since season 1. The fact that the 4th and 5th place maps were 4th and 5th place over the other contenders makes me really wonder if the people voting actually looked at the maps or just voted for their friends. I know several maps submitted are A LOT better than those maps... What's up with this???
I would say we should trust them about Morrows map. It is Morrow after all, he knows a lot more about maps and the game in general that anybody else in this subforum.
This is far too conciliatory an attitude, in addition to being wrong. Would the maps have been judged any differently if they were all anonymous? Probably the difference would be very little.
As for keith, try explaining yourself beyond "I know better"; no one will take you seriously.
I wish that you would've atleast checked out the map before commenting on it. Your comments regarding Dodongo doesn't really bring anything right now since you havn't even tested it. I think you should atleast check it out in-game first, since you've now missed some features of the map. I also don't believe that every map needs watchtowers or LoSB (however, Dodongo do have LoSB). As for the mineral block instead of destructible rocks, the mineral wall offers even more defenders advantage then the destructible rocks.
One last thing, this hype you are talking about, i most've missed it completly.
You don't have a map thread for it and you're from Sweden, which unless you have multiple accounts means it's uploaded on EU, which means no, I can't play it even if I wanted to. This also means I can only go by what I see in the overview picture posted in the OP.
I can't see any LoSB which is why I mentioned it. I can only assume now they are blocking the d-rocks as to now allow warp-ins.
No, I don't think every map needs watchtowers either, but with how many paths there are in the middle and all the different high ground pods it means armies are going to be all over this map. It also means there's a good chance we'll see an extreme amount of base trade scenarios.
I fail to see how the mineral wall offers a defenders advantage when it'll be better in every way for the offender, especially in this map. If you take that base as your 4th and don't mine out the minerals, tanks will sit up there blocking the path, collosus can abuse the cliffs, smaller armies can run back to the mineral wall and force your whole army to funnel through the tiny choke that is there. So no, it doesn't create a defenders advantage.
I know I might be coming off as hostile because I basically just grilled your map so it's fine that you are being defensive about it, but in all honesty, it doesn't feel like this map should belong in the top 5 at all. Then again, maybe all the other submissions were imbalanced or had massive flaws.
Also, MoTM I know use to always have an Aesthetics category and this map would no doubt score a 1 or 2 out of 10 in that category which means it's crazy that it still got placed top 5. Maybe they don't judge on Aesthetics anymore though. /shrug
Ah, the time-honored tradition of post-MotM results post salt. A coming-of-age for many mapmakers who have yet to grow the thick layer of skin needed to grow as a mapmaker and accept criticism on their maps, or display the fact that they are disappointed with one of the only mediums to evaluate your skills as a mapmaker or recieve attention for your skills from the public eye as a whole.
I love these threads. Congrats to the winners, you guys deserved it. To the losers, as I say always... step your game up and better luck next time.
On May 02 2012 10:39 prodiG wrote: Ah, the time-honored tradition of post-MotM results post salt. A coming-of-age for many mapmakers who have yet to grow the thick layer of skin needed to grow as a mapmaker and accept criticism on their maps, or display the fact that they are disappointed with one of the only mediums to evaluate your skills as a mapmaker or recieve attention for your skills from the public eye as a whole.
I love these threads. Congrats to the winners, you guys deserved it. To the losers, as I say always... step your game up and better luck next time.
We need to organize a drinking game based around this.
Drink when: "Can judges please post feedback." "I don't understand why X map didn't make it." "I am pro and this other map should be in." "What about the special awards" The word "aesthetics", "innovative", is used more than 3 times in a post. Mereel doesn't make the Top 5 (<3) Alabaster posts something about how mappers are arrogant
Shot when: User was warned for this post. "X map is just a copy of Y" "This is biased for mappers on teams" "When are there going to be more themed MotMs?"
Finish your drink when: User was banned for this post. "baskerville"
EPT
