EPTI prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation.
[D] Melee Mapmaking Union - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On October 24 2012 07:22 lefix wrote: I am kind of against the idea of picking a small selection of maps to promote, which means: if your map isn't on that list, it's GG - which I think that can be very disheartening for mapmakers. I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation. i think that was not excluded so far, but good that you highlight this aspect! | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 24 2012 07:22 lefix wrote: I am kind of against the idea of picking a small selection of maps to promote, which means: if your map isn't on that list, it's GG - which I think that can be very disheartening for mapmakers. I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation. I agree with this. However, if we were to have a cumulative list of maps from the contributions made each month, the list would proceed to build up until it becomes unwieldy. To this end, we would probably need a sort of cut-off time limit, e.g. Melee Maps made more than 4 months ago will no longer be considered. Also, the number of maps to feature from week to week would have to be weighed carefully and/or changed, and the possibility of allowing someone to put their map back into consideration by requesting it or bumping, etc. would have to be considered. Consider how the forum itself works: the most popular topics stay on top, and all topics from the last 3 days are visible, after that it disappears. However, if the author wishes to do so they may bump it and bring it back to the public eye. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: i did. yet i wanted to ask for, what you wish for in all seriousness. because thinking about how to talk tournament makes alone does not help either. the whole idea of a union is to re-establish a good and public discussion first and foremost, after the whole team thing actually created quite a split and hurt map feedback a lot (imo). so to establish a discussion what maps are needed and to be produced and find a mode to highlight good maps is a step that is really needed before tournament organizers are approached. so let me ask you again: what do you wish for? take the last few motm maps and discuss how to "sell" them to TOs? I seem to be getting this sort of request quite a bit, despite the substance already being in my posts. I'll try to bullet-point everything for easier digestion (and at the request of Icetoad for people to be more concise in this thread  ):1. Mapmaking teams should be run more properly. They're currently a mess and do not look like organizations to be taken seriously by legitimate businesses (tournaments organizations) trying to sell a consumer product (the tournament). 2. With a much better image worth taking seriously, mapmaking teams should put effort explaining to these businesses why a consistently rotating map pool is good for their consumer product. 3. Mapmakers need to stop trying to convince these businesses to pick "good/best" maps -- there is no empirical data from which to judge this, making it a worthless suggestion. 4. Also, a need to stop publicly vilifying these businesses with insults when they introduce a map you don't like. If a map is bad, the games and public reaction will show that, and a rotating pool will allow those maps to be phased out promptly (ties in with point 2). For details regarding any of these points, just search for my posts in this thread. I will not answer questions like "how do we even start trying to contact these people?" If you have questions like this, I suggest acquiring more business experience before attempting to create these sorts of business relations. On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: i have a problem with this because imo it does not need to be mentioned at all - and it does not make sense as long as you see the process of map critique (best map) as non valid, as long as you do not accept that subjectivity is ok and actually balances out quite a bit when you just ask wnough people to argument for or against a map. Actually, it was important to be mentioned because I was responding to MarcusRife, who was making statements about how tournaments should pick "the BEST maps", as he put it. Context matters. On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: why should i take something away? this is not a battle i am trying to win... this is a general idea that came to my mind and i think it would help big parts of the community to actually evaluate their "work" and make better maps long term. it has nothing to do with you personal, but with you (the readers). It's not about winning/losing "battles". However, you cherry-picked a part of my post and made it a case for the exact opposite I was suggesting. That is what I mean about not taking anything away from my post. I was saying how choosing things like a "best" map is impossible, and that the focus should be on convincing tournaments to refresh their map pools regularly in the first place. With your cherry picking, you made the suggestion for people (including myself) to message tournaments with what maps we think should be in their map pools -- in other words, what maps we think are the "best". You must be able to see what's wrong with that. On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: you made a solid case why it is beneficial? sure you did and i think what you said is common sense. not want to take anything away from you, but sure, wth... entertainment is better with more interesting games on a few newer maps because player will adept and playstyles will evolve. we had that a thousand times, didn't we? i think a form of organization that extends the teams would be beneficial. and yes, we cannot change map rotation, but we can make better maps because right now there are just too few maps that are tournament ready  and to quote myself: I've already made my concerns about this union idea, so I won't get repetitive. I do want to say, though, that I disagree with the idea that there are too few maps that are "tournament-ready". That's just as vague and subjective a term as "best". There are many good-looking (referring to layout, not just aesthetics) maps that have been made; whether the same amount of them would end up actually playing out as well as they look is for initial play-testing and rotating map pools to discover. It's for that reason I say that communication with tournaments should focus more on persuading that rotating map pools are okay, and in fact beneficial. edit: dang, post ended up big again. I'VE FAILED YOU ICETOAD I AM SO SORRY. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation. Sure, it is subjective and there will always be disagreement. But, there are few people who would disagree with the statement that Cloud Kingdom is more interesting than Antiga Shipyard. The fact that it is hard to say what the "best" maps are give more support to the idea of rotating maps more often so that we can gather evidence on which are the more interesting maps. You can't support the claim with data because it doesn't exist since people like him won't introduce new maps to generate the data. Once the data exists the case can be made. Its a chicken and egg problem. If you put me in a room with Sundance I feel I could make a very strong case and help him understand. Come on Mapmaking Union get me an audience with Sundance. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Fans who play very little or not at all (but watch a ton of Starcraft) make up a big % of the viewerbase for tourneys. I used to be one of those fans for a little while before I got more into the game. These fans get tired of seeing the games always on the same maps for 2 reasons. 1) They want to see their favorite players play on a new, pretty landscape every so often. (sounds shallow, but it's true) 2) They get tired of always seeing the same builds (this is partially due to the meta, but certain new types of maps can and do introduce/force new builds). Casual fans love seeing stuff you don't see as often, such as nydus, reapers, etc. These things have very little to do with balance, but for the sake of the more hardcore viewers and the pros themselves, we should keep balance in mind as well. The idea that a huge portion of Sundance's consumer base wants to see interesting new landscapes that might play out differently is something that -can- be presented to him as a fact, as least if we do some surveying about it. If you can establish that the map pool needs to be circulated regularly for this reason, then you come to the question "who should suggest which maps to try out, keeping in mind both new playstyles and balance?". Which is where the mapmaking council/group/coalition/whatever would come in, because of their experience/expertise. p.s. - This is not related exactly to the mapmaking council idea, but the fact that people want to see new types of games is why we should try to make as few vanilla maps as possible. Do 1-2 controversial things in each map you make, imo. (But no more than that, because if there's too many all at once then you can't balance it.) | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On October 24 2012 07:55 MarcusRife wrote: Sure, it is subjective and there will always be disagreement. But, there are few people who would disagree with the statement that Cloud Kingdom is more interesting than Antiga Shipyard. The fact that it is hard to say what the "best" maps are give more support to the idea of rotating maps more often so that we can gather evidence on which are the more interesting maps. You can't support the claim with data because it doesn't exist since people like him won't introduce new maps to generate the data. Once the data exists the case can be made. Its a chicken and egg problem. If you put me in a room with Sundance I feel I could make a very strong case and help him understand. Come on Mapmaking Union get me an audience with Sundance. That's essentially my point, and why I have said that it's more important to make a case to tournaments why their product will benefit by having a regularly rotating map pool. It's my opinion that growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps is the key for giving tournaments a legitimate reason to give the idea a shot. ------------------ On October 24 2012 07:56 Fatam wrote: All the [rather absurd, both in length and content] semantic arguments aside, I think there is another angle here that hasn't been mentioned (at least, I didn't see it in my skimming. Apologies if I missed it.) - the casual viewer. Fans who play very little or not at all (but watch a ton of Starcraft) make up a big % of the viewerbase for tourneys. I used to be one of those fans for a little while before I got more into the game. These fans get tired of seeing the games always on the same maps for 2 reasons. 1) They want to see their favorite players play on a new, pretty landscape every so often. (sounds shallow, but it's true) 2) They get tired of always seeing the same builds (this is partially due to the meta, but certain new types of maps can and do introduce/force new builds). Casual fans love seeing stuff you don't see as often, such as nydus, reapers, etc. These things have very little to do with balance, but for the sake of the more hardcore viewers and the pros themselves, we should keep balance in mind as well. The idea that a huge portion of Sundance's consumer base wants to see interesting new landscapes that might play out differently is something that -can- be presented to him as a fact, as least if we do some surveying about it. If you can establish that the map pool needs to be circulated regularly for this reason, then you come to the question "who should suggest which maps to try out, keeping in mind both new playstyles and balance?". Which is where the mapmaking council/group/coalition/whatever would come in, because of their experience/expertise. p.s. - This is not related exactly to the mapmaking council idea, but the fact that people want to see new types of games is why we should try to make as few vanilla maps as possible. Do 1-2 controversial things in each map you make, imo. (But no more than that, because if there's too many all at once then you can't balance it.) I don't use the term "casual viewer" directly, but they are included when I speak of "viewers" and "consumers". In particular, like I was just saying to MarcusRife about growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps and how that sentiment can be key to convincing tournament organizers like Sundance to have a more regularly rotating map pool. I agree with you completely on that. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OfEp0.png) I am so proud of my table. If you are unconvinced about the casual viewers, spend time in stream chat on a mid-low traffic stream of a popular player. It's 90% casuals, and all they want is novelty. The untapped appetite for maps is readily apparent. They also have almost no clue about the finer points of SC2. We wouldn't have to prove anything to them to have their support. We already have it implicitly but we're not visible to them in any way. + Show Spoiler + btw it doesn't make sense to me at all that so many people who understand sc2 poorly watch it with such rapt attention, but it's cool with me! I posted a link earlier to a thread discussing how casuals play SC2. A lot of people said they play custom 1v1 games. Think about what this means for map visibility if the upcoming custom games system matched arcade and even a single community map gained popularity (snowballing playtime/high ratings/featured thumbnail pic slot). | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 24 2012 08:08 iamcaustic wrote: That is what you assume to be true here implicitly, but how do you know that is even true? Maybe they are right and fast rotation does not benefit them commercially in any way?That's essentially my point, and why I have said that it's more important to make a case to tournaments why their product will benefit by having a regularly rotating map pool. It's my opinion that growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps is the key for giving tournaments a legitimate reason to give the idea a shot. Also, why don't people go ballistic on you while you say pretty much the same things as I. what's your secret son? | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On October 24 2012 07:22 lefix wrote: I am kind of against the idea of picking a small selection of maps to promote, which means: if your map isn't on that list, it's GG - which I think that can be very disheartening for mapmakers. I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation. i agree with this. | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
I think the next step should be to get a bunch of guys together in a skype group, evaluate what has been said so far and decide on the best course of action. And then get this thing going. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On October 24 2012 14:09 EatThePath wrote: Also agree about casual viewers. Witness the appropriate spot on my table. I am so proud of my table. If you are unconvinced about the casual viewers, spend time in stream chat on a mid-low traffic stream of a popular player. It's 90% casuals, and all they want is novelty. The untapped appetite for maps is readily apparent. They also have almost no clue about the finer points of SC2. We wouldn't have to prove anything to them to have their support. We already have it implicitly but we're not visible to them in any way. + Show Spoiler + btw it doesn't make sense to me at all that so many people who understand sc2 poorly watch it with such rapt attention, but it's cool with me! I posted a link earlier to a thread discussing how casuals play SC2. A lot of people said they play custom 1v1 games. Think about what this means for map visibility if the upcoming custom games system matched arcade and even a single community map gained popularity (snowballing playtime/high ratings/featured thumbnail pic slot). This last part makes me think that if this project is fulfilled and community maps are chosen to be highlighted, an effort should be organized and made by as many as possible to rate the chosen maps highly so they'll actually be played by people on bnet and not just discussed even more on TL. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
@ iamcaustic -- In response to this, I agree with your sentiments. @ EatThePath -- Really? I'm surprised at you, it makes a lot of sense to me why people would want to watch SC2 without a deep understanding. It's a freakin' Sci-Fi war that you get to see unfold before your very eyes! I mean, there have been threads about this in the past. But aside from the clumping, which at high level is mitigated by expert box-spliting, it's not to hard to follow the action especially with casters and really get into it. But this is getting off topic so... :D umm... can't wait to this this plan of yours. XD @ SiskosGoatee -- Well, as I said before, you come off as: "No, no, nO, NO, N, O, uh-uh, nope, but I can see that maybe." Caustic at least reads more like: "Well given this problem, you should probably consider X approach if you want something like this to work." At least to some degree it sounds like he trying to help out, rather than simply pointing out pitfalls (which is a positive toned way of saying what it sounds like). I'm sure you can cut all of the helpful lines in your posts as a defense, but the tone is simply overall negative. @ MarcusRife -- You are going to get Sundance to budge?! All those in favor of Marcus as supreme leader of this MMMU (which is also coincidently the new Terran deathball composition in HoTS) raise your hand and say "asdfhjiowefhkjsdhaf!" XD @ lefix -- I agree and disagree. As I mentioned I think this union, committee, w/e should be more focused on refining/communicating/executing/lobbying the goals of the getting tourney map rotation, improved SC2 client, etc. and not specifically promoting any particular map. But, as far as getting maps into a tournament, once the TO's say, "okay, so we should have some new maps", when they next say, "so what did you have in mind?" the MMMU should probably have a few maps up their sleeve to promote up front. But I think after that is when mapping teams, et al. start to take over their own promotion. I am wary of forming an authority entity because this is where it is no longer something that has a universally accepted voice. Now, if something like that eventually becomes necessary *after* we have tournament acceptance of better map pool rotation... I think that is something that will be discussed in due time. But I really do not see how that should be the focus of the discussion at this point in time. @ Barrin -- Yes you, Barrin. Do you happen to have any of the statistics related to the FRB tournament? I think there was a major tournament on one of the weeks of the live casting. This might be the best place we can gather some sort of statistics on viewership of new maps. Now granted it wasn't just new maps, but the movement was born out of sentiments of the gameplay being stale which in some way included the map pool. It may not be much, but it seems like it could be a starting point for gathering any sort of "meaningful" statistics. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 25 2012 00:15 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea.@ SiskosGoatee -- Well, as I said before, you come off as: "No, no, nO, NO, N, O, uh-uh, nope, but I can see that maybe." Caustic at least reads more like: "Well given this problem, you should probably consider X approach if you want something like this to work." At least to some degree it sounds like he trying to help out, rather than simply pointing out pitfalls (which is a positive toned way of saying what it sounds like). I'm sure you can cut all of the helpful lines in your posts as a defense, but the tone is simply overall negative. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On October 25 2012 00:24 SiskosGoatee wrote: It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea. So again, as EatThePath has said now twice, it's about trying. Failure IS an option. It sucks as a response -- no one likes rejection. But pessimism doesn't HELP. And if you have nothing positive to add, or an alternative solution, then the input you have to give not only doesn't help, it becomes unnecessary for you to even mention really, by your own logic. Just saying "don't do this it's not worth your time", but NOT saying what IS worth the time is why people jump on you. I do not see why you cannot have seen this for yourself if you have already been able to answer how this committee endeavor is going to turn out. Besides, the actual ways in which this committee are going to work has not been determined, so how can you be pessimistic for the workings of something that does not have a clear definition? Maybe the final definition of the committee will include the magic formula for answering your objection even though you do not see it now. Again, this is why you get jumped on. If you can't bear to waste time, then just go on doing what you were doing. If what we do works, and we get map rotation, then you are happy to get what you wanted. If what we do doesn't work, than you are happy you didn't waste your own time. I am not sure I see your angle for continuing to say "don't waste your time trying to affect tournament map pool rotation in a better organized way" since you admit that you are for better map pool rotation and since you know that many of us are going to continue this discussion no matter how much you warn/object in your current line. Suggest options or don't waste your own (and everyone else's) time (let us waste our own XD). I hate to put it in those terms, but that's what it boils down to. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On October 24 2012 14:27 SiskosGoatee wrote: That is what you assume to be true here implicitly, but how do you know that is even true? Maybe they are right and fast rotation does not benefit them commercially in any way? Also, why don't people go ballistic on you while you say pretty much the same things as I. what's your secret son? Basically, I admit that it's my opinion, even if I mention previous business experience to make the case I'm not just some crackpot saying nutty things. That's the secret sauce to any discussion where the topic revolves around untested/unproven statements. As long as everyone understands that we're discussing opinions, they're free to agree or disagree at their whim and everyone is happy. It also helps to not be too specific about the path to be taken, and rather push forward the broader idea so that people can think up their own approaches to accomplish that idea.For example, you've mentioned an NASL segment as the likely way to go in order to warm tournaments up to new maps. This immediately shuts out any alternative answers, and gives the argument a more authoritative vibe. Contrast that to my posts, and I only focus on the idea of convincing tournament organizers to adopt a rotating map pool, leaving everyone to ponder their own solution how to bring it about. Gives off less of a "NO, it has to be this way!" sort of feeling, while still stating my opinions on the direction that should be taken. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 25 2012 00:54 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: I beg to differ, I believe that this is a waste of resources and in the event I can convince you to follow a different course of action which I suggested, thereby, assuming that I'm right (Which I believe), we are more likely to see pro level games on new maps, which is what I strife to achieve.So again, as EatThePath has said now twice, it's about trying. Failure IS an option. It sucks as a response -- no one likes rejection. But pessimism doesn't HELP. And if you have nothing positive to add, or an alternative solution, then the input you have to give not only doesn't help, it becomes unnecessary for you to even mention really, by your own logic. Just saying "don't do this it's not worth your time", but NOT saying what IS worth the time is why people jump on you. I do not see why you cannot have seen this for yourself if you have already been able to answer how this committee endeavor is going to turn out. I've said what must be done a lot of time. I still stand by that the NASL segment is the best hope. The thing is that people want this council to work in one way or another, but what must be realized that the council is a means to achieve faster map rotation. And I believe starting of smaller with the NASL segment is a better means to that end. Therefore I am arguing against the council and in favour of the NASL segment.Besides, the actual ways in which this committee are going to work has not been determined, so how can you be pessimistic for the workings of something that does not have a clear definition? Maybe the final definition of the committee will include the magic formula for answering your objection even though you do not see it now. I believe that a council at the fundament will never work because for it to work and to be taken seriously it needs to be able to speak for the community consensus of mappers, and there is no community consensus.Again, this is why you get jumped on. I'm not so sure, I've been saying pretty much the exact same thing as caustic and suggested the same course with the addition that I proposed the NASL segment as a novel idea.On October 25 2012 02:28 iamcaustic wrote: Not sure why, I have constantly said 'I believe this is the best course' not 'this is the best course'. I have no empirical data for this, this is just my gut feeling, again.Basically, I admit that it's my opinion, even if I mention previous business experience to make the case I'm not just some crackpot saying nutty things. That's the secret sauce to any discussion where the topic revolves around untested/unproven statements. As long as everyone understands that we're discussing opinions, they're free to agree or disagree at their whim and everyone is happy. It also helps to not be too specific about the path to be taken, and rather push forward the broader idea so that people can think up their own approaches to accomplish that idea.For example, you've mentioned an NASL segment as the likely way to go in order to warm tournaments up to new maps. This immediately shuts out any alternative answers, and gives the argument a more authoritative vibe. Contrast that to my posts, and I only focus on the idea of convincing tournament organizers to adopt a rotating map pool, leaving everyone to ponder their own solution how to bring it about. Gives off less of a "NO, it has to be this way!" sort of feeling, while still stating my opinions on the direction that should be taken. However, what I do not believe to be my 'gut feeling' is that tournament organizers want numbers and data to be convinced. Sundance at the very least plainly said so. THis is just how entertainment business operates. Shows that draw not a lot of viewers tend to get cancelled, no matter how 'good' they are. See Star Trek, the network execs absolutely loved it but were forced to cancel it because it wasn't profitable. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On October 25 2012 00:24 SiskosGoatee wrote: It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea. Frankly, there's a lot about the "current form" that has not been fleshed out. I wouldn't use the term "doomed" when not all the details are given. Rather, there were some major concerns with the overall concept (of which I made my case and we've seen some adjustment/refinement of scope as a result) and I believe that there are some steps that can be taken which would potentially make the entire concept unnecessary (not a bad thing; it just means that we'd be able to get results without having to set this union in motion). Most of my skepticism comes from the idea that: 1. I believe the team model holds merit 2. This union idea was borne from the general perception that the team model isn't working 3. I saw some very big misses and missteps on the execution side of the team model In other words, if mapmaking teams were mishandled/neglected in general, what would cause the handling of this project to be any more successful? That kind of skepticism is easily dispelled by action, though. On October 25 2012 02:40 SiskosGoatee wrote: I beg to differ, I believe that this is a waste of resources and in the event I can convince you to follow a different course of action which I suggested, thereby, assuming that I'm right (Which I believe), we are more likely to see pro level games on new maps, which is what I strife to achieve. This is why people jump on you more. There's much to be said about how one lays out their argument. Calling peoples' efforts and ideas a waste (bit of a dick move, really), clearly stating your goal is to convince people (rather than just laying out your opinions and letting others come up with their own conclusions), and qualifying potentially better results with the assumption you're right (as opposed to qualifying with something impartial like "should statement X be true"; also a dick move and doesn't make your case at all if people think you're wrong)... yeah, how you approach a discussion is kind of important. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea. The problem is, all your posts after the first "it won't work" post are absolutely pointless. If we want to sit here and try to make a map council work, why would you want to spend such an effort to try and stop us? How the rest of us use our time does not even affect you. Surely a mapmaker of all people would understand this concept. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
First of all, please compose a non-quoted post detailing your opinion of how, start to finish, the current mapping community and/or general SC2 community resources are going to achieve better/quicker/[insert improving adjective here] map pool rotation in current tournament play AND ALSO on the ladder. What is your view of how the pieces fit and what might work? Don't say "I've already said the NASL segment is the best shot" -- that doesn't describe a process, it doesn't name the players involve, it doesn't explain how that is using a universal voice or whatever. I want to see you say something like: I think that the current mapping teams should rabidly email, text, and twitter the NASL for a chance to do a segment displaying awesome game play on their map. They should get buddy-buddy with a handful of pros and host mini-tournaments on their ever rotating map pool so the NASL can see the trends in Twitch.tv viewership for the segment. After this gets popular, the team that won this segment should then push for tournament map pool rotation for the big tourney. After this, the teams can start to compete for slots with the other tournaments' streams, and eventually tackle their big tournaments, too. Finally, Barrin can start a thread on Battle.net where everyone just posts: Better map pool rotation, and finally Blizzard will cave. If you have such business acumen, then why can't you lay out a soup to nuts business model for how better map pool rotation is going to be brought about? Along other lines: Do you not think we can put together a group that would help validate a more or less universal opinion that simply "everyone wants better map pool rotation"? Do you not think that having such a group in some way could help lobby for that initial NASL segment? Seriously, at this point, forget the OP as anything but a starting point for this entire thread, the discussion so far has evolved pretty far past that. Why do you think that NO model of committee that might be beneficial toward getting better map pool rotation? I am still unclear of how you think an essenitally non-partisan group could not help in some way. Eventually, someone is going to start to need to make arguments why the NASL segments success (if indeed this is the ONLY in, or the only form of action that should be taken right now) means the big tournament should have a faster map pool rotation. Even in your own plan you still need to make that leap -- how is that done? Maybe you have some numbers, but it's just a segment. Wouldn't a group who's function is to rally the community, etc. as has been mentioned on other posts help, even in what I imagine is your scenario? | ||
| ||
