April passed. The final votes are in, we have our results! It has been a very contested month. All judges had different favorite maps, and different opinions on almost every other map. There has been alot of discussions, but in the end the final vote brought us this month's winner. Congratulations to monitor and ESV on the winning map: ESV Afterglow! We also had the korean mapmaking community participate for the first time this month. We hope to see more korean submissions in the future. Another thing worth mentioning is how well Dodongo and Firestorm did. Not only were they made by mapmakers not from Crux, ESV or TPW, but they were also very original in their map's features and playstyle. We sincerely hope to see more maps like those in the future!
Afterglow, by ESV’s monitor, ended up getting the highest scores and won April’s title. The judges agreed that it probably had the most solid layout and was decorated beautifully.
Wrl, from the TPW mapmaking team, managed to place third with his Crossfire/Peaks of Baekdu adaption, Peaks of Alamar. The judges all liked the changes he made to the original and felt this was a very well executed map.
Not much to say about top 3 those are overall solid and cool.
About Firestorm, it's quite unique and even tho that makes it hard to theorycraft about it, I trusted the fact that Morrow is actually pro One major criticism tho: That red/pink texture is actually one of the worst things I have ever seen aesthetically in a map. Hurts my eyes how bad this looks lol
About Dodongo, altho it may not have the refinement level of maps we see from mapmaking teams, this is Mieszko's second creative 4p map in a row now and it's good to see he gets the recognition he deserves now by getting top 5!
Well done everyone, was a fun month to judge. Also shoutout to Archvile for Crystarium and Ironman for Spring, those only barely didn't make it into top5.
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
On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Oh and I think you should reward innovation a bit more. Afterglow feels like Daybreak #9001 to me. Although it has some nice details the overall expanding and agression pattern is the same.
On May 02 2012 05:46 Aunvilgod wrote: On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Agreed. I'd like to see a description on each map and why they got top 5, and also the judge's thoughts on each of the maps that didn't make it.
On May 02 2012 05:46 Aunvilgod wrote: On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Oh and I think you should reward innovation a bit more. Afterglow feels like Daybreak #9001 to me. Although it has some nice details the overall expanding and agression pattern is the same.
Your whole post kinda doesn't make sense. You say you don't have a chance unless you are on ESV or TPW, yet 2 out of 5 maps are from teamless mapmakers.
Dodongo lacks details? I guess you mean aesthetics, which really don't matter THAT much. Maps just have to have some minimal standard, and if they are streamed for many people a map like this would need some update to fulfill quality standard for that. But for winning top5 you really don't need to make your map super beautiful and detailed like Metropolis.
And Dodongo is pretty innovative so your last point about rewarding innovation doesn't make sense either. Also because Afterglow rly isn't like Daybreak and it isn't THAT standard.
On May 02 2012 05:46 Aunvilgod wrote: On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Agreed. I'd like to see a description on each map and why they got top 5, and also the judge's thoughts on each of the maps that didn't make it.
While I agree that some comments on top maps would be a good thing for the contest, comments on every single map seems a bit excessive...
On May 02 2012 05:46 Aunvilgod wrote: On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Agreed. I'd like to see a description on each map and why they got top 5, and also the judge's thoughts on each of the maps that didn't make it.
While I agree that some comments on top maps would be a good thing for the contest, comments on every single map seems a bit excessive...
Well you have to think about it anyway, why not just write your thoughts down? Does not need to be a long story...
On May 02 2012 05:46 Aunvilgod wrote: On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Oh and I think you should reward innovation a bit more. Afterglow feels like Daybreak #9001 to me. Although it has some nice details the overall expanding and agression pattern is the same.
Your whole post kinda doesn't make sense. You say you don't have a chance unless you are on ESV or TPW, yet 2 out of 5 maps are from teamless mapmakers.
Dodongo lacks details? I guess you mean aesthetics, which really don't matter THAT much. Maps just have to have some minimal standard, and if they are streamed for many people a map like this would need some update to fulfill quality standard for that. But for winning top5 you really don't need to make your map super beautiful and detailed like Metropolis.
And Dodongo is pretty innovative so your last point about rewarding innovation doesn't make sense either. Also because Afterglow rly isn't like Daybreak and it isn't THAT standard.
The 3 winning maps were maps from ESV and TPW. But I don´t mind this that much as it is not very unlikely that their maps are the best.
I think that aesthetics are extremely imoportant. Maybe the judges don´t think so. So yeah. Dodongo was not a winning map, this is not something I really call rewarding.
I liked the MotM a few months back where they made several extremely entertaining prizes for different outstanding features of the maps. Like the Asa Akira prize for making the backdoor popular or something along those lines.
On May 02 2012 05:46 Aunvilgod wrote: On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Agreed. I'd like to see a description on each map and why they got top 5, and also the judge's thoughts on each of the maps that didn't make it.
While I agree that some comments on top maps would be a good thing for the contest, comments on every single map seems a bit excessive...
They've done it before, and it each time it is greatly appreciated and very helpful.
This said, as bitter as he sounds these days, i think accusing Alabaster, who has immensely helped many newbie mapmakers (including me) of being a troll is both an insult and an error.
On May 02 2012 06:08 ArcticRaven wrote: This said, as bitter as he sounds these days, i think accusing Alabaster, who has immensely helped many newbie mapmakers (including me) of being a troll is both an insult and an error.
I'm not so sure. If all it was was wanting to know the judge lineup, it's pretty clearly stated in the submission thread, which got bumped up a couple days ago. I think, despite how constructive his feedback can/has been, he should work on being less of a stone cold bummer.
Congrats to all the winners though, as always! Personally, I like Tanzanite quite a lot, it just has so much style to it I think.
I hope the men behind the curtain have some sorta theme planned for May. Freestyling it up is cool, but gets old after a while, in my opinion.
I really like the choices for the 2nd and 3rd place. Both are very beautiful and not-so standard. Peaks of Alamar would have been my pick for #1.
On May 02 2012 06:08 ArcticRaven wrote: This said, as bitter as he sounds these days, i think accusing Alabaster, who has immensely helped many newbie mapmakers (including me) of being a troll is both an insult and an error.
I really like Morrow's map. It reminds me a lot of a couple BW style maps where you would have mineral patches that could lead into pathways into an opponent's base. I think that all the back doors and area where expansions need to be controlled add a different characteristic to game play. Overall, very good maps!
On May 02 2012 05:46 Aunvilgod wrote: On one hand it is quite dismotivating if you have no chance unless you are on ESV or TPW. On the other hand their maps are usually the best maps.
I don´t understand why Dodongo is so high placed, judging from the overview it lacks details pretty bad.
Agreed. I'd like to see a description on each map and why they got top 5, and also the judge's thoughts on each of the maps that didn't make it.
While I agree that some comments on top maps would be a good thing for the contest, comments on every single map seems a bit excessive...
They've done it before, and it each time it is greatly appreciated and very helpful.
This said, as bitter as he sounds these days, i think accusing Alabaster, who has immensely helped many newbie mapmakers (including me) of being a troll is both an insult and an error.
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
I wasn't trolling, nor do I troll. I am highly critical of maps, regardless of team/alliance. I also call people out for falsehood (such as the Cloud Kingdom/Vicious issues). I'm very critical of most maps because most maps are poor in my opinion, and I would like there to be many more good maps. As well, a good critical eye on certain teams and organizations keeps people honest and allows them to explain their position.
Also, the reason for my post was simply wondering who the judges were, as I recall that in previous months monitor was on the panel and superouman wasn't. And in that vein, it would be wrong for a mapper to judge his own maps. I would also like to know the criteria under which these maps were judged and where the point distribution came from.
For instance, it would interesting to see each judges particular scores- does Barrin judge certain maps (like macro maps), higher than others (like 'cheese' maps), does Nightmarjoo value aesthetics higher than ragoo? Not for any bias purposes, but because individual scores would allow the community to associate maps with certain people. If I share Barrin's opinions, I could disregard other judges more and follow Barrin more closely.
On May 02 2012 06:18 Aunvilgod wrote: I really like the choices for the 2nd and 3rd place. Both are very beautiful and not-so standard. Peaks of Alamar would have been my pick for #1.
On May 02 2012 06:08 ArcticRaven wrote: This said, as bitter as he sounds these days, i think accusing Alabaster, who has immensely helped many newbie mapmakers (including me) of being a troll is both an insult and an error.
Maybe he could be a bit more... positive overall.
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.
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"
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)
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"
"All of the winners are too standard, its the same map over and over again." "The winning map(s) are imbalanced and only chosen because they are innovative."
"This map was only chosen because it has nice aesthetics, layout is shit." "Wtf is with the aesthetics?? The map is so ugly it isn't even playable."
[edit]
Congrats to the other top five maps and mapmakers!
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)
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"
"All of the winners are too standard, its the same map over and over again." "The winning map(s) are imbalanced and only chosen because they are innovative."
"This map was only chosen because it has nice aesthetics, layout is shit." "Wtf is with the aesthetics?? The map is so ugly it isn't even playable."
[edit]
Congrats to the other top five maps and mapmakers!
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)
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"
"All of the winners are too standard, its the same map over and over again." "The winning map(s) are imbalanced and only chosen because they are innovative."
"This map was only chosen because it has nice aesthetics, layout is shit." "Wtf is with the aesthetics?? The map is so ugly it isn't even playable."
[edit]
Congrats to the other top five maps and mapmakers!
"Mappers ignore legitimate criticism they have no answer to" "Mappers argue that a certain feature is, in fact, not totally broken, for 10 posts" "Aesthetic's are attributed to personal preference as form of insult 'Well, the aesthetics, I don't like them....'"
More specific: "#madebyprodiG instantly has 50 replies" "superouman makes a map that breaks people's heads and eyes, leaving a mass of bodies going 'bwuah?'" "Alabaster says something nice about a map not made by crux" <---- finish the bottle.
Congrats to the winners, but after seeing all the maps that were submitted I'm beginning to really question the judges
Sorry for being negative but 2nd place map should be 1st place, and the other one's are all...
---> :S <----
again this is IMO
But there were way better quality maps running in MotM April
All of which have a lot of work put into them and deserve some play time rather than a shrug-off comment, Makes me sad
the only map that should remain in the winners is 2nd place I call a rejudge haha
Or someone else who is nice enough to set up a separate competition or event for the real winners to display their creations Congrats to everyone who Submitted
lol at all the drinking game quotes, esp "baskerville"
and I like monitor's opposites.
It's really true about prodig's maps though. He puts "ESV blah blah - by prodig" as the title, and every rando and his sister comes and posts either "WOW GSL NOW" or "this is pretty good layout but it needs to be more like XNC" etc. And alabaster is the arrogant one...?? To be fair it's caught on with most of ESV now.
On May 02 2012 13:40 EatThePath wrote: igrok can dish it out but he cant take it?
lol at all the drinking game quotes, esp "baskerville"
and I like monitor's opposites.
It's really true about prodig's maps though. He puts "ESV blah blah - by prodig" as the title, and every rando and his sister comes and posts either "WOW GSL NOW" or "this is pretty good layout but it needs to be more like XNC" etc. And alabaster is the arrogant one...?? To be fair it's caught on with most of ESV now.
On May 02 2012 13:40 EatThePath wrote: igrok can dish it out but he cant take it?
lol at all the drinking game quotes, esp "baskerville"
and I like monitor's opposites.
It's really true about prodig's maps though. He puts "ESV blah blah - by prodig" as the title, and every rando and his sister comes and posts either "WOW GSL NOW" or "this is pretty good layout but it needs to be more like XNC" etc. And alabaster is the arrogant one...?? To be fair it's caught on with most of ESV now.
While I do not necessarily agree with some negative thoughts expressed here, I find it difficult to agree with the top five maps. I do not know if they "well deserved" the win. I cannot play these maps and hence cannot comment on what maps I would take and why(moved, new job, no Internet). Not saying the maps are bad, but some of this top5 do not look that great on first sight.
II want to ask for more transparency and argue against the attitude some people display ( do not argue against the judges, all winners are great maps, step your game up, etc.)
1. Saying congrats to the winners, well deserved - it is polite and nice, but it does not fit in the heated atmosphere here. Rather think about why people complain and let them know why map x is better and deserves e.g. fourth place . There will not be more respect for judges and mapper only because some well known map maker writes down a few nice but in the end very meaningless words.
2. I laughed about the drinking game stuff, but in the end all the funny answers on critical remarks do not help the cause of mapmaking, but in the end also make fun if this (serious) thread.
3. Posting the judges initial ratings or at least the first round total for each map would not hurt, but help many people understand the ratings a bit better. All I ask is a bit more transparency to make people feel taken serious, even without writing down a comment on every map. Maybe at least some of the judges could decide on displaying their top ten picks?
4. The more experienced mapmaker often have a good understanding of why some map made it or didn't. Mist can always ask someone as they know at least one if the judges from skype etc.
In no way I argue against the top 5. As long as I cannot play them I do not want to judge. Still top3 look like good layouts at least, have not yet looked at the other two overviews long enough ... No Internet sucks
Anyway a more friendly tone with the judges should be a must. Even when you are critical with the whole motm thing. They do this in there free time! I hope this comment is not read as something coming from not being in top5. Everyone wants to be there, noone wants to complain openly. But from my distanced view I feel some parts of the map making scene might be to happy with there success. An elitist attitude is never the right answer against critical remarks. Trust me I'm a doctor.
While I disagree with couple results, I can't argue
Would like to see "honourable mentions" as in previous months. Not so much the awards crap (honestly) but certain details of certain maps that most or all the judges really really liked or disliked. This way mappers can get a feel for what works for them.
I think most people's questions would can be answered by considering the new numeric system. A map (like ESV Spring for example) might not score high for any judges, and on average get passed up (barely) by a map that scores below average for three judges and very high for two other judges. Thus it gets beat out for top 5 by maps that might not seem "more top 5" than it. (Using Spring purely as a hypothetical example.)
If it mattered more, I would post an analysis of what the linear mario kart scoring system does to a pool of 30-50 submissions, but it's just MotM. If people are interested I can. Also I'd say you guys should retool the scoring system, but... it's just MotM, which right now is just a (laudable) exhibition of, by, and for the mappers. It might have been more in the past, and it may be in the future.
The best way for non-ESV and non-TPW mappers to contribute to mapping is to... KEEP MAPPING! You push the "teams" ahead even if it doesn't seem like it. And when more TL map contests roll around, you might be timetwister #2. Just because some randoms didn't pick you for talent show X doesn't mean your map wasn't good.
On that note, I would also repeat what I've said before: if the "entitled" mappers want to keep the scene invigorated, they need to seriously consider ways to incorporate freelance mappers into some sort of process that provides the opportunity to have their maps reach the highest levels. That doesn't have to be now, or next month, maybe not next year. We've barely got foreigner mapping underway -- TL map contest winners -> ladder maps and GSL. But in the future we will need to be as legitimately democratic as possible to maintain the health of the community. Eventually.
@EatThePath: We were aware of the problem you are describing. To fix this, we actually did not just vote on the 5 maps which placed highest in the initial mario kart scoring, but also the maps that were reasonably close in points. We ended up voting on 9 maps actually.
@Dodongo: The aesthetics aren't really as bad as some of you claim. I'd argue that it is probably looking better than the average submission I've included some closeups for those who haven't seen the map ingame yet. + Show Spoiler +
On May 02 2012 16:53 lefix wrote: @EatThePath: We were aware of the problem you are describing. To fix this, we actually did not just vote on the 5 maps which placed highest in the initial mario kart scoring, but also the maps that were reasonably close in points. We ended up voting on 9 maps actually.
@Dodongo: The aesthetics aren't really as bad as some of you claim. I'd argue that it is probably looking better than the average submission I've included some closeups for those who haven't seen the map ingame yet. + Show Spoiler +
On May 02 2012 16:53 lefix wrote: @EatThePath: We were aware of the problem you are describing. To fix this, we actually did not just vote on the 5 maps which placed highest in the initial mario kart scoring, but also the maps that were reasonably close in points. We ended up voting on 9 maps actually.
Can we know what those 9 maps were and how they scored? + Show Spoiler +
I wish Blizzard would just take the top 5 of MotM into the ladder monthly or based upon popularity vote. Ladder maps are all less interesting than these
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
On May 02 2012 23:39 Barrin wrote: I have no idea if we've ever asked them to judge (we would expect a "no", tbh), but we've certainly never turned them down.
considering the talk after Dreamhack map pool brouhaha, and how - I think it was Tyler and Incontrol - said "just ask us to give feedback," I think you should ask around and not simply expect a no from everyone. Like KawaiiRice posts a lot on TL, maybe someone like him could be invited. I think it's important to have legit higher level players at least involved in the judging of these kind of things. Maybe not through the entire process, but at least when it comes to top 3/5 or whatever...
Yeah, now that community-made maps are really getting into ladder and tournaments, I think at least some pro players will be willing to give feedback on maps.
I'm really looking forward to hopefully see the criticism on my map, I believe I need it to help me progress as a mapper so thanks in advance. Congrats to the winners, although I don't think the best map won (not saying it's bad!) I'm really happy to see more non ESV and TPW winners. Keep up the great work everyone.
On the other hand, it's not like they could just drop by the Custom Maps section... I mean its only what, like an inch below the Tournament section? How many times have I seen pros streaming and pull up the tourney's pages? If they were interested in giving feedback, it's there to give. Morrow seems like the only one who is really interested, and that's because he's got a little bit more of a vested interest.
Ideally you would want to have at least one pro from each race. I think getting a little bit of feedback from some pro players would be a really good thing - as Barrin said, its two different skill sets to know what a good map is and to know how to play (read: abuse) it. At the very least, it would give a different perspective, which is always a good thing.
Hell, I give my feedback all the time on the winning maps because I love to voice my opinion. I think you can look back at every MoTM results thread and there's probably a pretty long post where I list all the top 5 maps and say what i like and dislike about them.
I think I could be a great judge, but do I really want to judge? No, not really. I'd rather submit maps and then bitch afterwards when I don't win. haha <3
On May 03 2012 02:56 Barrin wrote: Being a judge is a lot more strenuous than simply giving some feedback on a few maps. Actually its almost completely different. When you're a judge you have to weigh multiple maps against each other (a lot harder than it looks), not just look at maps individually and think of how it could be better. Being a good judge is a lot more time consuming than being a good critic. As Hypertonic pointed out, if they want to give feedback on these maps, they don't really have to be part of MotM to do it.
You know... map's makers can just ask them for feedback too, though if you constantly ask them for help and your maps consistently suck you'll probably discourage them from wanting to help. Should MotM go around asking pros for comments on these maps? What would we do with these comments? Surely we should get them before posting results, but how much should we let them affect the judging process? Personally, as far as this goes I think we should only use their feedback to garner insight that the judges themselves use to judge. If they affect the judging process, it's not like we can ask them to look at every single map... we should only ask them for feedback on like the top 9 maps or so? It would be nice if each finalist could get a quote from a progamer who likes it.
Of course if they wanna judge that's great. But judging is more than just "giving some feedback".
The issue of "feedback" was more an example that pros actually seem to be willing to interact with the map making community. I wasn't suggesting that as co-judges, pros would simply be "giving some feedback" as you so reductively put it.
involving pros would be a step towards giving something like MOTM more credibility. Right now it's just something very internal to a very small map making community. And I also don't think that map makers are actually as good as they think they are when it comes to judging if a map plays well or not. People who play the game competitively would probably have a lot of insights into what makes one map better than another, when comparing a shortlist of maps.
Frankly, I'm extremely surprised that anyone even remotely associated with MOTM would have second thoughts about involving pros in the judging...
I like the 1st map, but I think it's just because this map favors a lot the strategies I recently use. But still it seems like it is indeed the best map for place 1.
The 3rd map looks more like it was put there just because the terrain looks beautiful and not because of map balance, in my opinion the expansion placements are some of the most awful I ever seen, would have deserved 4th or 5th place more.
On the other hand even though 5th map isn't that beautiful, I really like the way the expansions are positioned there. More love for map#5 please.
On May 03 2012 00:59 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: On the other hand, it's not like they could just drop by the Custom Maps section... I mean its only what, like an inch below the Tournament section? How many times have I seen pros streaming and pull up the tourney's pages? If they were interested in giving feedback, it's there to give. Morrow seems like the only one who is really interested, and that's because he's got a little bit more of a vested interest.
I think gumiho is renowned for experimenting new maps. I remember beastyqt posting a thread about how the blizz map pool sucks and community maps should be considered more long ago.
Why are people demanding to go get pros to judge this when there is nothing on the line besides pride? I mean I get everyone wants to be the best but let's be real here, players like Tyler said they would help with major tournament map pools, not a competition that has no prize.
I <3 MotM but you guys really expect too much and bitch and whine too much. I could see being more demanding when it had the IEM sponsorship (did anything ever come out of that lol?) but right now I think it's crazy to be asking for people like Gumiho and others to judge this with no benefit. They won't get paid, the maps likely won't hit tournament circuits, and there is not actual prize afaik.
On May 03 2012 05:59 Diamond wrote: Why are people demanding to go get pros to judge this when there is nothing on the line besides pride? I mean I get everyone wants to be the best but let's be real here, players like Tyler said they would help with major tournament map pools, not a competition that has no prize.
I <3 MotM but you guys really expect too much and bitch and whine too much. I could see being more demanding when it had the IEM sponsorship (did anything ever come out of that lol?) but right now I think it's crazy to be asking for people like Gumiho and others to judge this with no benefit. They won't get paid, the maps likely won't hit tournament circuits, and there is not actual prize afaik.
yeah, it's such a horrible thing to see potential for improvement, and to comment on these issues. Shame on us for bitching and whining.
Sigh.. fine, keep your closed off circle jerk to yourselves then
On May 03 2012 05:59 Diamond wrote: Why are people demanding to go get pros to judge this when there is nothing on the line besides pride? I mean I get everyone wants to be the best but let's be real here, players like Tyler said they would help with major tournament map pools, not a competition that has no prize.
I <3 MotM but you guys really expect too much and bitch and whine too much. I could see being more demanding when it had the IEM sponsorship (did anything ever come out of that lol?) but right now I think it's crazy to be asking for people like Gumiho and others to judge this with no benefit. They won't get paid, the maps likely won't hit tournament circuits, and there is not actual prize afaik.
yeah, it's such a horrible thing to see potential for improvement, and to comment on these issues. Shame on us for bitching and whining.
Sigh.. fine, keep your closed off circle jerk to yourselves then
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 ^^
On May 03 2012 05:59 Diamond wrote: Why are people demanding to go get pros to judge this when there is nothing on the line besides pride? I mean I get everyone wants to be the best but let's be real here, players like Tyler said they would help with major tournament map pools, not a competition that has no prize.
I <3 MotM but you guys really expect too much and bitch and whine too much. I could see being more demanding when it had the IEM sponsorship (did anything ever come out of that lol?) but right now I think it's crazy to be asking for people like Gumiho and others to judge this with no benefit. They won't get paid, the maps likely won't hit tournament circuits, and there is not actual prize afaik.
yeah, it's such a horrible thing to see potential for improvement, and to comment on these issues. Shame on us for bitching and whining.
Sigh.. fine, keep your closed off circle jerk to yourselves then
I'm all for improvement, but be realistic.
getting some lower tier pro/semi-pro to be a co-judge doesn't seem unrealistic to me
On May 03 2012 05:59 Diamond wrote: Why are people demanding to go get pros to judge this when there is nothing on the line besides pride? I mean I get everyone wants to be the best but let's be real here, players like Tyler said they would help with major tournament map pools, not a competition that has no prize.
I <3 MotM but you guys really expect too much and bitch and whine too much. I could see being more demanding when it had the IEM sponsorship (did anything ever come out of that lol?) but right now I think it's crazy to be asking for people like Gumiho and others to judge this with no benefit. They won't get paid, the maps likely won't hit tournament circuits, and there is not actual prize afaik.
yeah, it's such a horrible thing to see potential for improvement, and to comment on these issues. Shame on us for bitching and whining.
Sigh.. fine, keep your closed off circle jerk to yourselves then
I'm all for improvement, but be realistic.
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.
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.
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.
Still trying to fill the last judge spot for may, thread coming up very soon
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.
I was a judge in this competition, and here's what I think about the maps. Note that what I say doesn't reflect or contradict the opinions of the other judges or of the competition as a whole. Regardless of what I say about the maps I am content with the final rankings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, it is basically a tool to determine how much a judge actually likes a map. before the scoring, we took some popular maps (mlg map pool) and rated those for reference. then we scored the motm maps in relation to those maps' scores. without numbers, you will always have the problem that the most vocal person will have a larger influence than others.
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
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.
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
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!
Basic x and y symmetry can work if done well (e.g. Troy from bw), but typically results in a horrible map. Symmetry isn't usually a big deal in sc2 since even the worst mappers can make a completely symmetrical map with the editor's copy/rotate/paste tools. Still, some mappers try x + y symmetry without accounting for the problems it causes and it just instantly makes the map bad by creating too-short or too-long distances between expos or between players, etc. So good symmetry usually means rotational symmetry in a 3+ player map or x/y symmetry in 2 player maps.
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
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.
Yes it was among the submitted maps that we looked over. One comment by another judge on it was "Super open thirds, massive circle syndrome. Terrible choke sizing"
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.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TJtLt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nsIXn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YPMCR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fIrTh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/onLze.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rmmuG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iHCFQ.jpg)
One major criticism tho: That red/pink texture is actually one of the worst things I have ever seen aesthetically in a map. Hurts my eyes how bad this looks lol
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KhfeE.jpg)
