EPTgetting some lower tier pro/semi-pro to be a co-judge doesn't seem unrealistic to me
MotM April - Results - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
getting some lower tier pro/semi-pro to be a co-judge doesn't seem unrealistic to me | ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
I bet there's lots of semi-pros that would be willing to help out. Like Barrin said, have the judges pick their favorites (probably around the top 10 maps) and then just see what some semi-pros think of them. Look through the streamers on the TL live streams page. Like the un-featured ones, too. There's some very high masters and a couple GM players that are not pros. And if you watch their streams when new ladder maps are announced they often actually go through each map and play on them and see what they like and don't like about them. That's very similar to what we're looking for here. Not necessarily judging the map, just giving their opinions on balance and fun. If there's not a non-douchy high masters zerg, protoss, and terran player willing to spend a couple hours each month to look at 10 reasonably good maps, call me crazy and hang me upside down as the TL Mapping Community dunce. | ||
|
fenX
France127 Posts
On May 03 2012 05:59 Diamond wrote:They won't get paid, the maps likely won't hit tournament circuits, and there is not actual prize afaik. Doesn't that apply to mapmakers too ? I'm sure players would love to still have Steppes of war, Delta Quadrant or Jungle bassin in the ladder pool, those maps where made by respectable professionnals from Blizzard, instead of crappy amateurish maps like Ohana or Cloud Kingdom, made by some people who didn't get paid for their time. That being said I'd like to know what were the other 4 maps in the selected top 9. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 03 2012 07:11 monitor wrote: The thing is, the whining is really frustrating to read as a judge because its not like MotM is some superpower, its just 2 guys (lefix mostly, and I) trying to help the community. If you guys want to get involved, actually do something instead of just whining about what we should do. Trust me, we want to get players involved, we want to get tournaments involved, we want to make everybody happy- its just really difficult. Go ahead and contact players and tournaments or us personally if you want to help ^^ This times a thousand. You get you what you put in. | ||
|
fenX
France127 Posts
| ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
 About the writeups, it is unfortunate that none of the judges wanted to do writeups, but it is always a very time consuming process. I can't really demand it from anyone, it has always been kind of voluntary extra work. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
My top four favourite maps In descending order were: Afterglow, Waste Land, Hatross, and Tanzanite. In alphabetical order the remainder of my top ten are: Burning Refinery, Crystarium, Dodongo, Genesis, Spring, and Zigzag Canyon. Genesis and Crystarium are the same to me conceptually, with the latter having imo the better layout. Either way both are fairly boring and standard. Their execution is what makes me consider them at all. Dodongo: I would hate to actually have to play on this map, but it's at least different and not too poorly made. I hope that the map can inspire other mappers to try out different layouts, even if its execution isn't particularly good. Burning Refinery: I'd be inclined to like it more if the main/nat weren't retarded, but even with those improvements the map wouldn't be particularly interesting. Thus what this map brings to the table relative to the others submitted for the competition is that I think it's fairly comfortable to play on. Spring: Too many bases, too side oriented, but playable. Zigzag Canyon: I think it needs all rocks removed. The mains look small. The pathing is interesting, but doesn't really fit the expo layout very well. There are too many bases and the expo density is too high. Tanzanite: This map is interesting, but needs work imo. I think the map is well-executed for the most part, and is one of the best maps submitted as far as current playability is concerned. I would like to see some changes in it though: Even paths are terrible; a central path through the middle should be added (and the middle expos moved/reoriented to allow this). I think the defender is too strong atm and that the middle should be made double highground. The towers should be removed. The paths currently blocked by rocks should be enlarged. The reason I think this is because concaves are so important in sc2. Right now the defender has highground advantage over the middle and the greater potential for making a concave or flank. Giving the middle the highground advantage would help balance this out. Enlarging those paths and creating an odd path through the middle will further increase the map's mobility and thus flank potential. I think this would make the map more dynamic and thus less turtleish. Hatross: This map is fairly boring, but I think sc2 needs more 3 player maps. Additionally the map is well-made. The problem lies in how easy the money is to get. I think the 6m1g concept would work really well with this layout. Waste Land: I hate backdoor expos, but besides that I really like the map. I think it has an interesting expo layout, good potential for actual fighting (neutral expos), and good pathing. The backdoor ramp should probably be widened though, it feels too drop-unsafe atm. Towers should be removed. Dunno what's with the main choke, but I doubt it hurts anything. Mostly I like that the map is different but still playable (imo). Afterglow: This is the best executed map submitted imo. I like the layout: the dynamic between top and bottom half of the map, and between the highground and lowground. The proximity of the two top expos is the worst part of the map, but I think that problem is offset by the multitude of paths throughout the map. I like the element of ambiguity in the expo layout. Though there's no neutrality in expo placement I feel there is no obviously superior expo direction players are forced to take. Here's what I think about the two maps in the top5 that I didn't vote for: Peaks of Alamur: I don't like this map. It's not bad by any means, but I simply view it as a failed construct. It has all of the problems of Crossfire with the only difference that it has even more money to get stuck in a stalemate with. There are a couple new paths opened up in the back corners of the map, but these don't help the map at all because the bottleneck in the middle remains. There is thus no functional change improvement or change in the map's pathing. Firestorm: I didn't like this when it was submitted for the TLMC, and I don't like it now. It hasn't been changed once since then even. I actually consider it to be an outright bad map. The gameplay is imo attrocious. The problems lie in the middle. It's too small, too tight, too constricted, and too congested. All pathing runs through the middle, into this one single, small area. That means that whoever controls the middle controls the game. This is a problem because it seems too difficult for the other player to contest that control. Thus whoever has the advantage such that they can secure the middle automatically gains a greater advantage. I think that at all times a concept which favours the player who already has the advantage is a bad one. Interesting gameplay comes from players fighting and making comebacks. In this map there can be little fighting and no comebacks assuming evenly matched players. The problems of the middle are exacerbated by the shitty expo layout. The 4th base can be shut down from the middle. So whoever gains the advantage and thus gains the positional advantage of controlling the middle gains a further advantage in controlling the other player's income. The disadvantaged player can't regain control over the middle not only because of the positional strengths of the middle, but because the player controlling the middle can take a 4th base and the disadvantaged player can't. Thus the advantaged player has a positional and economical advantage over the other. Positional imbalances further arise in how easy/hard it is to take or harass the opponent's 4th as result of the rotational symmetry. I however am not recommending any (4)map use a different form of symmetry though. So given these problems the disadvantaged player's only chance to win the game are with desperate air or drop based harass attempts or attacks. There are two additional problems here: if this is their only option then the opponent can easily prepare for it in anticipation. The second problem is that such preparation need not weaken their hold over the middle given the tightness of the middle and the lack of air room in the map in general. Ultimately the map's problems lie in its poor pathing, but beyond that all the different "features" of the map accentuate that problem resulting in horrible gameplay. I'm not even talking about racial balance here, though there are certainly potential problems there as well. Excluding Firestorm, I think every map I've mentioned is better than every map submitted that I didn't mention. I don't particularly want to go into specifics on why, but generally speaking the other maps had faults in their execution and/or concept such that the end result was imo poor. So for comparison, Afterglow's concept may not be particularly strong or interesting, but the map's execution is so good that it makes up for it. Even then though, Afterglow's concept is more interesting than that of many of the submitted maps. The easiest way to make a bad map is to make a x and y symmetrical (4)map. Second easiest way is to make a map with an even number of paths. Third easiest way is to make some generic x/y symmetrical (2)map with either too many bases or a complete lack of a concept. Fourth easiest way is to make a map focused around some single feature or really "neat" concept without maintaining proper distances, shapes, sizes, pathing, etc. | ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
| ||
|
DeadHunter
United Kingdom2 Posts
On May 09 2012 11:31 RumbleBadger wrote: Nightmarjoo, without being too specific about what I disagree or agree with as I don't like making enemies, I want to say that I like you and your post. Blunt, but very helpful, even though I'm not any of the authors of those maps. And blunt advice is the best advice. Too many times people are wishy-washy about maps. I concur. I wish there were better judges and more feedback like yours, Nightmarjoo. | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
| ||
|
Amlitzer
United States471 Posts
| ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
without numbers, you will always have the problem that the most vocal person will have a larger influence than others. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
On May 09 2012 17:16 Amlitzer wrote: Giving scores for maps just seems like a really dumb idea to me. It just seems like you are throwing arbitrary numbers around, and what exactly classifies as a zero or a ten? I highly doubt sc2 has even seen a map that qualify for a perfect ten, or even a nine so far. What does it mean when a map makes a 0.2 score higher than another? I'd recommend to just skip giving the maps numerical scores. With time I think the numerical values can mean more as previous competitions will set precedent for what's good and what isn't. The numbers here were generated by the average of all the judge's scores to help eliminate any bias or difference in ranking procedure. My average rating was the lowest of all judges, but some judges' scores were more extreme than mine. Thus I think the rating system does work after averaging the scores. Should the numbers be taken as a completely literal absolute ranking system? Probably not, at least currently; but as a relative way to rank the winning maps relative to eachother and then also relative to the rest of the submitted maps I think it is successful. If the winners are the top5, then you can assume the 6th best map and everything below it would receive worse average ratings. I came up with the following rating system and then used it to rate the maps. No other judge used this exact system. The differences in numbers here are not a linear progression of map quality, but rather they represent large jumps which attempt to rate maps absolutely (instead of relatively). I only used these integer values in my ratings, but other judges used decimal differentiation as well. I would probably use half-values for a map that I had a really hard time matching up to a rating here. Notice I don't address balance at all, but general map execution and gameplay (the latter being a product of the layout/concept). Thus I would probably rate Cloud Kingdom for example as an 8 despite its poor balance statistics and one specific general annoyance in gameplay (the difficulty in defending the 3rd due to its tightness). Entombed Valley I can easily rate as being a 2 for its poor symmetry (which results in poor distances), poor shapes/sizes, and weak concept. 1 complete mess; made by complete beginner, no mapping experience 2 resembles a map but has huge problems 3 proper symmetry, ok layout, positional balance 4 good symmetry, competent layout, positional balance, neat concept, fatal flaws 5 map is executed well but has big conceptual, pathing, expo layout problems 6 good execution, but either poor concept or poor layout 7 good execution, good layout, concept weak or some contradictory elements 8 excellent execution and layout; good, well supported concept; only little errors 9 one of the absolute best contemporary maps 10 the best map ever made; doesn't exist afterglow 7, tanzanite 6, peaks of alamar 5, crystarium 5, firestorm 3, dodongo 4, helios 2, hatross 6, spring 4 | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 10 2012 06:44 Nightmarjoo wrote: + Show Spoiler + With time I think the numerical values can mean more as previous competitions will set precedent for what's good and what isn't. The numbers here were generated by the average of all the judge's scores to help eliminate any bias or difference in ranking procedure. My average rating was the lowest of all judges, but some judges' scores were more extreme than mine. Thus I think the rating system does work after averaging the scores. Should the numbers be taken as a completely literal absolute ranking system? Probably not, at least currently; but as a relative way to rank the winning maps relative to eachother and then also relative to the rest of the submitted maps I think it is successful. If the winners are the top5, then you can assume the 6th best map and everything below it would receive worse average ratings. I came up with the following rating system and then used it to rate the maps. No other judge used this exact system. The differences in numbers here are not a linear progression of map quality, but rather they represent large jumps which attempt to rate maps absolutely (instead of relatively). I only used these integer values in my ratings, but other judges used decimal differentiation as well. I would probably use half-values for a map that I had a really hard time matching up to a rating here. Notice I don't address balance at all, but general map execution and gameplay (the latter being a product of the layout/concept). Thus I would probably rate Cloud Kingdom for example as an 8 despite its poor balance statistics and one specific general annoyance in gameplay (the difficulty in defending the 3rd due to its tightness). Entombed Valley I can easily rate as being a 2 for its poor symmetry (which results in poor distances), poor shapes/sizes, and weak concept. 1 complete mess; made by complete beginner, no mapping experience 2 resembles a map but has huge problems 3 proper symmetry, ok layout, positional balance 4 good symmetry, competent layout, positional balance, neat concept, fatal flaws 5 map is executed well but has big conceptual, pathing, expo layout problems 6 good execution, but either poor concept or poor layout 7 good execution, good layout, concept weak or some contradictory elements 8 excellent execution and layout; good, well supported concept; only little errors 9 one of the absolute best contemporary maps 10 the best map ever made; doesn't exist afterglow 7, tanzanite 6, peaks of alamar 5, crystarium 5, firestorm 3, dodongo 4, helios 2, hatross 6, spring 4 I find this to be a valuable post. Of course, insight into a judge's thoughts on the submissions is nice and all, but I do think the number rating could hold some merit, given that it is adhered to over the competitions. Also nice rubric, very harsh and realistic. I could get used to it. | ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
On May 10 2012 06:44 Nightmarjoo wrote: + Show Spoiler + With time I think the numerical values can mean more as previous competitions will set precedent for what's good and what isn't. The numbers here were generated by the average of all the judge's scores to help eliminate any bias or difference in ranking procedure. My average rating was the lowest of all judges, but some judges' scores were more extreme than mine. Thus I think the rating system does work after averaging the scores. Should the numbers be taken as a completely literal absolute ranking system? Probably not, at least currently; but as a relative way to rank the winning maps relative to eachother and then also relative to the rest of the submitted maps I think it is successful. If the winners are the top5, then you can assume the 6th best map and everything below it would receive worse average ratings. I came up with the following rating system and then used it to rate the maps. No other judge used this exact system. The differences in numbers here are not a linear progression of map quality, but rather they represent large jumps which attempt to rate maps absolutely (instead of relatively). I only used these integer values in my ratings, but other judges used decimal differentiation as well. I would probably use half-values for a map that I had a really hard time matching up to a rating here. Notice I don't address balance at all, but general map execution and gameplay (the latter being a product of the layout/concept). Thus I would probably rate Cloud Kingdom for example as an 8 despite its poor balance statistics and one specific general annoyance in gameplay (the difficulty in defending the 3rd due to its tightness). Entombed Valley I can easily rate as being a 2 for its poor symmetry (which results in poor distances), poor shapes/sizes, and weak concept. 1 complete mess; made by complete beginner, no mapping experience 2 resembles a map but has huge problems 3 proper symmetry, ok layout, positional balance 4 good symmetry, competent layout, positional balance, neat concept, fatal flaws 5 map is executed well but has big conceptual, pathing, expo layout problems 6 good execution, but either poor concept or poor layout 7 good execution, good layout, concept weak or some contradictory elements 8 excellent execution and layout; good, well supported concept; only little errors 9 one of the absolute best contemporary maps 10 the best map ever made; doesn't exist afterglow 7, tanzanite 6, peaks of alamar 5, crystarium 5, firestorm 3, dodongo 4, helios 2, hatross 6, spring 4 When you say good symmetry, do you mean that the map flows well from one side to the other? As in the map was designed to flow back and forth well? Otherwise, like the poster above me, this is very insightful and very good to hear. Thanks again! | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
| ||
|
erazerr
Australia86 Posts
| ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
On May 10 2012 10:18 erazerr wrote: Was my map (urban skyline) sent to Motm at all ? I posted it on the forum for april submissions and also e-mailed the file because there is no writeup for my map I think he just commented on the top 5 and his own top 5-10 or so. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
Personally I think the area just outside the nat is wasted space; and I don't like the expo layout. The two expos near the 3rd are almost strategically identical and easy to get and hold. The money is just a little too easy imo. Additionally I'm a firm believer that (2)maps need 5gas base and no more (yours has 6). I like highground/lowground dynamics, and like the shape of your highground middle, and I like the pathing around the corner expo, but I just think that these features are offset by a poor expo layout in general. I like aspects of your concept and some features of the map but overall I think these could have been executed better. It's not that the map is bad, it's just boring and brings nothing new to mapping. Also I think the tower should be removed. Towers should never be around height differences (on lowground or highground). A tower on the highground like in your map makes the highground control too strong. A tower in the lowground like on Cloud Kingdom negates the highground advantage pointlessly and often leads to a highground disadvantage caused by the lowground having vision and a better concave; not that that's relevant in your map. edit: Yes the guy above me is correct. There were 38 total submissions for this MOTM competition. I already stated in my first post that I only felt particularly strong about my top4, so I have no intent to describe what I personally liked or disliked about every single submitted map. edit2: So ultimately there were a bunch of pretty basic, standard, acceptably executed maps submitted which were overlooked for lacking in anything that separates them from other maps. So while Afterglow is pretty basic, its layout isn't super standard, and it's exceptionally well-executed. Thus it shines out among other maps (and I'm not describing the map's visuals). So a map like Dodongo performed better than maps that may have been executed slightly better because unlike them it's interesting. Its flaws prevent it from getting a higher position in the rankings, but that it isn't exactly the same as every other map while maintaining a degree of playability and comfort allows it to be worth showing off. | ||
| ||
