MotM ProAm: Selected Maps - Page 6

On July 20 2012 12:57 NewSunshine wrote:
and the mappers who weren't picked this time will get their chance later on.

On July 20 2012 14:38 Timetwister22 wrote:
I think most have noticed that the maps with the lowest of quality weren't exactly the ones to get picked. Instead, the majority of pros, including myself, picked a map that was already fairly solid. Some seem to have a problem with this, arguing that those lower quality maps that didn't get picked needed the help much more than these higher quality maps that did get picked. I entirely disagree, and I thought I might as well share why. I strongly believe that the best of the maps submitted should have been the ones to get picked, and I'm actually quite sad that not all the solid maps got picked. Here's why.

In my opinion, the skill difference between those who submitted the lowest quality of maps, and those who submitted the highest quality of maps, is actually quite minor. Learning things such as decent proportions, decent aesthetics, and the basic/standard rules of mapping is not all that difficult. By no means is this skill jump the hardest part of mapping. Rather, going from the highest quality of maps submitted here, to something like Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak is a much more significant and difficult leap in skill. The skill required to make something like Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom requires so much more than knowing how to place a texture, knowing that a nat choke should be ffe friendly, or knowing that a 2p map should at max have 12 bases. It requires a mapper to actually understand the game at a fairly high level, develop something entirely innovative, and to understand when the basic rules of mapping can and cannot be broken or changed.

With that said, I find that this motm format actually encourages pros to help out those who need it most...the ones that already understand the basics and need a helping hand grasping the more complex side of mapping. I am not saying that a mapper that makes low quality maps does not understand the game or have good ideas. What I am saying is that not knowing the basics of mapping can severely hinder your ability to express your game knowledge and your creativity. In other words, how are you supposed to make a Cloud Kingdom when you can't understand how to make a Xel'naga Caverns?

However, in this particular scenario of motm, I can promise you that not getting picked does not mean you don't understand the basics. There were only 12 pros after all, and there were many more submissions that showed a solid understanding in the basics. With so many nice submissions to choose from, I made my choice simply on personal preference on things such as map concept and ideas I had for improvement. In the end though, an understanding of the basics is the main reason why I choose one of the higher quality maps submitted instead of a lower quality map. Of course this may not exactly explain why many of the other pros picked a higher quality submission, since everyone has their own reasons. However, I am quite glad it turned out that way.

On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote:
I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.

You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?

On July 20 2012 14:38 Timetwister22 wrote:
In my opinion, the skill difference between those who submitted the lowest quality of maps, and those who submitted the highest quality of maps, is actually quite minor. Learning things such as decent proportions, decent aesthetics, and the basic/standard rules of mapping is not all that difficult. By no means is this skill jump the hardest part of mapping. Rather, going from the highest quality of maps submitted here, to something like Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak is a much more significant and difficult leap in skill. The skill required to make something like Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom requires so much more than knowing how to place a texture, knowing that a nat choke should be ffe friendly, or knowing that a 2p map should at max have 12 bases. It requires a mapper to actually understand the game at a fairly high level, develop something entirely innovative, and to understand when the basic rules of mapping can and cannot be broken or changed.

On July 21 2012 00:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:


1: Short rush distance, I don't think anyone likes to see this in a map, but it's good for mech play.

On July 21 2012 01:45 ArcticRaven wrote:


As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.

On July 21 2012 01:45 ArcticRaven wrote:


As much as I agree with the rest of your comments, I have to say I like short rush distances and am quite bored with 200/200 easy 3 base no rush 30 minutes macrofests. 1 base play should be as viable as 2 base or 3 base play.

On July 21 2012 02:36 stormfoxSC wrote:

Definitely don't think 1-base play should be nearly as viable. 1-base play, IMO, should be relegated to extreme riskiness to exploit someone's particularly greedy opening, should they open greedy. High-level stuff.

That said, I do agree with the sentiment that it's quite boring to watch 200/200 NR20 games with 3+ bases per player. Third base acquisition should be one of the most pivotal moments in the game, as it determines whether or not a player will be able to establish an optimal economy. Right now, it's mostly deemed a freebie in the community, which is what leads to passive games.

Current map-making styles reflect this sentiment, with third bases being so close that they're practically a second natural.

On July 21 2012 00:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I honestly don't buy this, professional mapmakers themselves have a loooot of criticism on each other's maps, in some cases I indeed agree. I think Metropolis is broken for the same reason everyone thinks it's broken. I love Cloud Kingdom and think the only thing it could use is a bit more dead space around it because once the third is taken in PvT, T has a pretty hard time still sneaking a drop in on which T sort of depends. In my opinion daybreak leads too much to split map turtle fest and the two forward expansions are too close together which is what that stage of the game seems to revolve around.

However, I am also completely convinced that the difference between very good maps such as CK and Daybreak and 'professional disasters' such as Metropolis and Terminus is simply luck, you can't foresee everything that will perhaps ruin how a map works. When I first saw metro I thought it was cool, I didn't realize back then that the map formation made split maps so common even though they aren't half as common on metalopolis which has a very similar layout, these are just things you can't foresee when you make a map until 100 progames are played on it. I don't think Superouman or Winpark can just recreate the success and nigh on perfection of those maps, you just make a map and it works or it doesn't because you can't foresee everything. CK has a very experimental design and if just a few things were different it could've possibly been a disaster. It's too complex to try to foresee everything, you try some stuff you hope is cool, and it works or it doesn't.

On July 21 2012 00:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I honestly don't buy this, professional mapmakers themselves have a loooot of criticism on each other's maps, in some cases I indeed agree. I think Metropolis is broken for the same reason everyone thinks it's broken. I love Cloud Kingdom and think the only thing it could use is a bit more dead space around it because once the third is taken in PvT, T has a pretty hard time still sneaking a drop in on which T sort of depends. In my opinion daybreak leads too much to split map turtle fest and the two forward expansions are too close together which is what that stage of the game seems to revolve around.

However, I am also completely convinced that the difference between very good maps such as CK and Daybreak and 'professional disasters' such as Metropolis and Terminus is simply luck, you can't foresee everything that will perhaps ruin how a map works. When I first saw metro I thought it was cool, I didn't realize back then that the map formation made split maps so common even though they aren't half as common on metalopolis which has a very similar layout, these are just things you can't foresee when you make a map until 100 progames are played on it. I don't think Superouman or Winpark can just recreate the success and nigh on perfection of those maps, you just make a map and it works or it doesn't because you can't foresee everything. CK has a very experimental design and if just a few things were different it could've possibly been a disaster. It's too complex to try to foresee everything, you try some stuff you hope is cool, and it works or it doesn't.

On July 21 2012 03:01 Aunvilgod wrote:


I completely agree. The best example is again Cloud Kingdom. Superouman might be a great mapper but even he didn´t forsee the choice of the 4ths.

On July 21 2012 02:52 monitor wrote:


The 200/200 turtling isn't actually that bad, its just some maps like Daybreak and Antiga that have bad gameplay. We really need maps that discourage turtling and encourage harassment. It would be bad to discourage expanding though, because that is one of the biggest factors in determining the better player as the game goes later and later. Also some maps like Ohana and Entombed are just getting boring- we need some new maps desperately!!!!

On July 21 2012 03:09 Gfire wrote:

I agree expanding should be encouraged - but not easy. The struggle to get up the expansion and defend it is the exciting part, not so much what they do with the economy once they have it (although that's interesting too.)

On July 21 2012 03:04 monitor wrote:
Notice how BW mapmakers are all the same guys, because they're the best ones out there?

On July 21 2012 03:09 Gfire wrote:

I agree expanding should be encouraged - but not easy. The struggle to get up the expansion and defend it is the exciting part, not so much what they do with the economy once they have it (although that's interesting too.)

On July 21 2012 04:55 SiskosGoatee wrote:
While the GSL mapmakers have multiple maps used. Let's face it, a lot of people agree there are a lot of problems with these maps and the only reason they are used is because the GSL heavily promotes them. I doubt metropolis and terminus and TDA and Crevasse or Bel'Shir beach would've seen much use without the GSL basically forcing them to be popular, most people agree that they are pretty bad maps. The GSL basically commissioned from these guys only for some reason for a long while and forced maps which are controversial at best to be used in the tournament scene by it, I doubt these maps would've become popular on their own because they aren't that good, Daybreak stands out contrasting strongly as a map without major flaws.

On July 21 2012 05:12 Gfire wrote:

I don't think this is true. At the time they came out, those maps were the best we had ever seen. We didn't know they were bad, and we used them because they were "good" at the time. The GSL mappers were the first to really try to make good maps, as they were the first to have the ability to use them in actual pools. However, I think now things have changed and everyone else has been trying to make good maps as well, now that we have a more solid set of standards.

I don't think that all these maps are really all that good, but I feel maps in the future (those which are currently in progress) will be far better, but these are still a step up from some of the really old ladder maps. The problem is maps aren't rotated quickly enough. We just don't see quite enough maps in total, which also means we don't want to use a map unless we are super sure that it's really good, cause it will probably be around for a long time.

edited for clarity.

On July 21 2012 05:12 Gfire wrote:

I don't think this is true. At the time they came out, those maps were the best we had ever seen. We didn't know they were bad, and we used them because they were "good" at the time. The GSL mappers were the first to really try to make good maps, as they were the first to have the ability to use them in actual pools. However, I think now things have changed and everyone else has been trying to make good maps as well, now that we have a more solid set of standards.

I don't think that all these maps are really all that good, but I feel maps in the future (those which are currently in progress) will be far better, but these are still a step up from some of the really old ladder maps. The problem is maps aren't rotated quickly enough. We just don't see quite enough maps in total, which also means we don't want to use a map unless we are super sure that it's really good, cause it will probably be around for a long time.

edited for clarity.