|
On October 21 2012 08:32 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 08:07 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 07:51 EatThePath wrote:I'm not even going to argue with you since it's clear you'd rather cling to your stick-in-the-mud attitude and win a forum argument than extend a millimeter beyond the point of disagreement in order to help. This is the only thing I want to address: On October 21 2012 07:30 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 07:12 EatThePath wrote:
This is not some kind of governing body. It is what its actions are. So far, it is comprised of primarily a map critiquing and advocacy publication function. If anything ever comes of it, it could be a liaison for tournament organizers, as per timetwister's vision. I really hope you're not so naive that you don't believe such a union would obtain authority in the mapmaking scene if it were to be the go-to liaison for tournaments, let alone becoming a "go-to" place for map publication. Team Liquid is another prime example here; they are THE western StarCraft community site. When it comes to publicizing things like a new map, your Twitch/Own3d stream, strategy guides, thoughts, etc. nothing else comes close. With that said, Team Liquid doesn't attempt to be voice of the StarCraft community, which is in stark contrast to exactly what's posted in the OP: Currently, the melee map making community does not have much of a voice, a center of organization, or a sense of community leadership. Mapmaking teams have arisen to fill in the lack of organization, but in ways they have further disorganized and fragmented the community. Tournament organizers, and those who are just interested in neat maps, currently do not have a one-stop shop source that represents the talent the community has as a whole. Instead, they will only look at maps from a particular team, mapmaker, or maps other tournaments have used. I find this unsettling. If custom melee maps are to ever get the attention they deserve, there first needs to be a source of central organization that represents the map making community as a whole. Extending personal insults to someone whom disagrees with you isn't exactly the best way to make a point. I'm not sure why you're being so personally defensive about it. On October 21 2012 07:51 EatThePath wrote:
There is and never has been any map authority. It's a diffuse system of complacency. Even if a union did gain "authority", whatever that means, how does that matter? "Little guys" losing out on "authority"? They don't have authority now, none of us do. What is your point in crapping up and down the whole vague proposal? There's also never been anything as is proposed in the OP. I'm also not really sure why you're asking these questions because all of them have been already addressed in my original response -- what "authority" would mean, how it would matter, and what the reaction would be. Seriously, take a breather, then read it through to the end. As for what the point is for... "crapping up and down", as you put it... is because I believe there's a much better way to go about solving the problems the OP wants to address. This better way can be found in my original response. Please do read it. In addition, I have this to say: as a business owner myself, I would have no interest in working with you. You've shown yourself to be completely closed to alternative opinion, conducted yourself rather poorly, and have failed to grasp what's being said on the points you did decide to discuss. Yet you express concern that you have no authority? It's because you can't be taken seriously -- I address that problem in my original response as well. Your post was a list of criticisms from your self-important perspective of business pedantry that, while useful to keep in mind, miss the mark in this case. Contrary to your repeated insistence, there is no clear recommendation of the best way to promote maps, other than your bizarre leap of interpretation that the proposed union would be and must be all-inclusive in order to work, which implicitly concedes the usefulness of a union. Your tone is antagonistic. You are out of touch. You project a desire for authority onto others.
My post was a list of criticisms and concerns invoked by the OP's request for feedback. Feedback isn't limited to "Yeah I love the idea, here are some things that I think might make it even better!" I made use of my background and experience to qualify some of the arguments I made, I apologize for that upsetting you. Also, my entire post focused around teams and their purpose, and why this union idea would be ill fit for a job that mapmaking teams could do better. I shouldn't have to hold your hand through this process.
Your posts continue to concede the sad reality for why these businesses do not take people like you seriously. You can throw insults at me all you like, but it doesn't help your case. I made a large, formatted feedback post for the OP, and you came out swinging with insults, yet I'm the antagonistic one apparently.
On October 21 2012 08:32 EatThePath wrote:
If I have said something wrong so far, please show me why. Alternatively you might simply reiterate your phantom plan. Otherwise I just don't give a shit about this dialogue other than I can't stand the propagation of a misinformed view conducted with asperity.
[edit] In light of above post, if your only idea is that existing map teams should do their job better (I gathered this already), how is just saying that going to make it happen? You are essentially condemning a handful of mappers for not putting enough effort into a hobby.
You are strident and tenacious on this issue. But I don't see how that is productive. That is my criticism of your original post and the ongoing discussion of it. Though do not mistake, I have gratitude for the modicum of crystalization of ideas these altercations provide.
//quote chain fix
I'm not sure how I can grade irrelevant insults and criticisms of my "tone" in a written post as "right" or "wrong", or that of accusations such as "phantom plan". I guess I can just sweepingly say "wrong" and be done with it. I've been talking business in a concise manner. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps I sound more abrasive in response to you, but that's just because it's hard to point out your conduct as an example for why legitimate business does not take people like you seriously without sounding insulting. Seriously, what do I say to numb that? "I just don't think that's the right way to act if you want to do business with companies"? I guess even that comes off as a little self-important, right?
I'm also not condemning anyone. There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things.
---------------------------------------
On October 21 2012 08:55 Timetwister22 wrote:
caustic, you make some very valid points. If all mapmaking teams stepped up and put in the effort that Diamond has for ESV, the community would be more successful. This model could still very well work, but the problem is that it hasn't. This approach is not only easier on the mapping community, but on tournament organizers as well. It's an alternative approach that has potential to work better. If not, then we can just go back to teams.
Fair enough. I've already expressed why I feel it'd be less efficient and problematic, but best of luck with it.
On October 21 2012 08:55 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 08:07 iamcaustic wrote:
If we assume the idea that this union would be pitching maps to tournaments, and that individual teams would be free to do as they wish as well (as is currently claimed in response to my concerns over authority), what you're setting yourself up for is not just three organizations pitching maps to this tournament, but now four. This is true assuming that teams keep going to tournaments. If the union becomes successful at fulfilling this role, then teams would only have to use outside methods to promote their maps, such as the ESV Korean Weekly. Overall, the union would replace a few of the responsibilities that teams currently have to carry. In that case, I suppose the union would have to go to the teams and say, "Hey, we're gonna do this for you, so stop doing it". This could be a problem, but then again our community is so small that the only team that would really be affected by this would be ESV. As far as I know, Diamond promotes our maps to tournaments because no one else is there to do it. So, if someone else stepped up to do the job, he may very well let them. This is something I'll have to mention to him if it comes to union organizers promoting maps to tournament organizers.
While the idea could work in theory if everyone was on board with it, at the end of the day if I were in someone like Diamond's position, I'd have no interest in it. I'd see no reason to hand off one of the, if not the most important part of my business and brand to be managed by another entity. It's definitely a difficult problem, and I have a tough time seeing the viability.
---------------------------------------
On October 21 2012 09:03 ulfryc wrote:
iamcaustic, you write about how you think such a union would harm new and upcoming players, because it would be even harder for them to get their map recognized. I think its much easier if there is one entity with you can contact to check your work, rather than having to be able to join a team.
You write how a map making team is a "business" that needs to communicate business to business, just to be recognized. Well thats something map making teams cant do. Those teams are no businesses and they never will be, because they will never make any money, and they don't expect to (with the example being ESV because they run their own tournament making them a tournament organizer). So there needs to be something that can represent them.
In conclusion I think such a committee can only help. I don't think there is no hurt in trying, and to see were we can actually go. If there are actually enough people who support this idea.
It's mostly a matter of scale that I'm concerned with new and upcoming players. Remember, instead of competing with other amateurs to gain the attention of one of multiple map making teams, you would be competing directly against these teams for relevance and a chance to have your map included in a single, union-sanctioned map pool. Assuming only top quality maps are included in this map pool, the chances of that happening are slimmer than being noticed by one of these teams. You could compare it to Koreans in their team houses vs. Americans that practice ladder at home -- we all know who takes the gold at tournaments. That's why I would find it harder for these upcoming people.
If some method is developed to avoid this problem, then that's one thing, but it hasn't been presented at this point in time.
I also disagree with the notion that map making teams are unable to be run as a business. ESV has proven that. Also, while ESV's business model is based around for-profit, that doesn't mean every team has to do the same. Most map makers already volunteer their time and map making teams with no revenue already exist. When I say "run it like a business", I'm referring to how you run a map making team, not necessarily telling people to go and make money.
For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at.
|
On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
While the idea could work in theory if everyone was on board with it, at the end of the day if I were in someone like Diamond's position, I'd have no interest in it. I'd see no reason to hand off one of the, if not the most important part of my business and brand to be managed by another entity. It's definitely a difficult problem, and I have a tough time seeing the viability.
That is actually the only real concern I see here. Well I guess we'll have to hope for a god guy Diamond  .
|
I would like to emphasize that the mapmaking team probably does not make Diamond much money, if any at all. I'd imagine the stream views, subscriptions, and sponsors for the Korean Weekly and LoL events make the vast majority of the income for ESV. The only thing the mapmaking team does for ESV is give a unique map pool for the Korean Weekly and promote ESV within the sc2 community with the ESV tags on our maps.
In that case, we already have a good guy Diamond. He is helping a few mapmakers, such as myself, get promotion for our maps with not much monetary gain for him. If someone else offered to promote to tournament organizers, and the team was ok with it, then he may very well be ok with it as well. Like I said earlier, certainly something worth mentioning to him if the union ends up directly contacting tournament organizers to promote maps.
|
On October 21 2012 09:41 Timetwister22 wrote:
I would like to emphasize that the mapmaking team probably does not make Diamond much money, if any at all. I'd imagine the stream views, subscriptions, and sponsors for the Korean Weekly and LoL events make the vast majority of the income for ESV. The only thing the mapmaking team does for ESV is give a unique map pool for the Korean Weekly and promote ESV within the sc2 community with the ESV tags on our maps.
In that case, we already have a good guy Diamond. He is helping a few mapmakers, such as myself, get promotion for our maps with not much monetary gain for him. If someone else offered to promote to tournament organizers, and the team was ok with it, then he may very well be ok with it as well. Like I said earlier, certainly something worth mentioning to him if the union ends up directly contacting tournament organizers to promote maps.
That's a good point to be had with ESV's new venture into LoL. When I said the mapmaking is one of ESV's most important aspects, I was only thinking of the SC2 portion -- which I still stand by. The Korean Weekly (and all the revenue that comes with it) is all about promoting ESV's maps. I'd think it'd lose a lot of its edge if it was just a mini GSL casted from replays and a much, much lower production budget. Especially when one can also subscribe to the OSL via Twitch now.
|
On October 21 2012 09:51 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:41 Timetwister22 wrote:
I would like to emphasize that the mapmaking team probably does not make Diamond much money, if any at all. I'd imagine the stream views, subscriptions, and sponsors for the Korean Weekly and LoL events make the vast majority of the income for ESV. The only thing the mapmaking team does for ESV is give a unique map pool for the Korean Weekly and promote ESV within the sc2 community with the ESV tags on our maps.
In that case, we already have a good guy Diamond. He is helping a few mapmakers, such as myself, get promotion for our maps with not much monetary gain for him. If someone else offered to promote to tournament organizers, and the team was ok with it, then he may very well be ok with it as well. Like I said earlier, certainly something worth mentioning to him if the union ends up directly contacting tournament organizers to promote maps. That's a good point to be had with ESV's new venture into LoL. When I said the mapmaking is one of ESV's most important aspects, I was only thinking of the SC2 portion -- which I still stand by. The Korean Weekly (and all the revenue that comes with it) is all about promoting ESV's maps. I'd think it'd lose a lot of its edge if it was just a mini GSL casted from replays and a much, much lower production budget. Especially when one can also subscribe to the OSL via Twitch now.
This is true. The Korean Weekly probably wouldn't be as cool if awesome ESV weren't in it. However, promoting via the KW and promoting by contacting tournament organizers are different. The union can contact the tournaments, and Diamond can continue to use the KW to give ESV maps an edge. After all, tournament organizers are more likely to use maps that have statics of high level play to back them up.
|
On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things.
Success! The point has arrived.
I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause.
Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of.
On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at.
It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed!
This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done.
1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.)
2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community.
Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers.
-----
On October 21 2012 09:57 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:51 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 09:41 Timetwister22 wrote:
I would like to emphasize that the mapmaking team probably does not make Diamond much money, if any at all. I'd imagine the stream views, subscriptions, and sponsors for the Korean Weekly and LoL events make the vast majority of the income for ESV. The only thing the mapmaking team does for ESV is give a unique map pool for the Korean Weekly and promote ESV within the sc2 community with the ESV tags on our maps.
In that case, we already have a good guy Diamond. He is helping a few mapmakers, such as myself, get promotion for our maps with not much monetary gain for him. If someone else offered to promote to tournament organizers, and the team was ok with it, then he may very well be ok with it as well. Like I said earlier, certainly something worth mentioning to him if the union ends up directly contacting tournament organizers to promote maps. That's a good point to be had with ESV's new venture into LoL. When I said the mapmaking is one of ESV's most important aspects, I was only thinking of the SC2 portion -- which I still stand by. The Korean Weekly (and all the revenue that comes with it) is all about promoting ESV's maps. I'd think it'd lose a lot of its edge if it was just a mini GSL casted from replays and a much, much lower production budget. Especially when one can also subscribe to the OSL via Twitch now. This is true. The Korean Weekly probably wouldn't be as cool if awesome ESV weren't in it. However, promoting via the KW and promoting by contacting tournament organizers are different. The union can contact the tournaments, and Diamond can continue to use the KW to give ESV maps an edge. After all, tournament organizers are more likely to use maps that have statics of high level play to back them up.
I think we should note, if you consider ESV a business, then the map team's role as a part of ESV is to add value to the KW product by making it unique. The purpose of ESV is not to promote the maps the team makes, although it does that too, possibly to some advantage. Diamond as an individual probably has some desire to promote maps apart from the role they play in the business. (Maybe he will post here eventually?)
|
On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of.
First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response.
My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms.
On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers.
That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out.
|
On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out.
Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed...
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.)
|
On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out. Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed...
This isn't a matter of egos. I don't think anyone here even qualifies for having one.
On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.)
I don't think anyone is questioning the necessity for passion. This is a discussion about how to best utilize that passion to achieve a desired result (better recognition of work for map makers and better representation of work in map pools). I don't believe there's anything negative or counter-productive about debating two optional paths that can be taken.
|
On October 21 2012 12:29 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out. Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed... This isn't a matter of egos. I don't think anyone here even qualifies for having one. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.) I don't think anyone is questioning the necessity for passion. This is a discussion about how to best utilize that passion to achieve a desired result (better recognition of work for map makers and better representation of work in map pools). I don't believe there's anything negative or counter-productive about debating two optional paths that can be taken.
So you think map teams is, on paper, the better way to go?
|
On October 21 2012 12:53 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:29 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out. Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed... This isn't a matter of egos. I don't think anyone here even qualifies for having one. On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.) I don't think anyone is questioning the necessity for passion. This is a discussion about how to best utilize that passion to achieve a desired result (better recognition of work for map makers and better representation of work in map pools). I don't believe there's anything negative or counter-productive about debating two optional paths that can be taken. So you think map teams is, on paper, the better way to go?
That would be the case I've been making, yes.
|
On October 21 2012 12:58 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:53 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 12:29 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out. Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed... This isn't a matter of egos. I don't think anyone here even qualifies for having one. On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.) I don't think anyone is questioning the necessity for passion. This is a discussion about how to best utilize that passion to achieve a desired result (better recognition of work for map makers and better representation of work in map pools). I don't believe there's anything negative or counter-productive about debating two optional paths that can be taken. So you think map teams is, on paper, the better way to go? That would be the case I've been making, yes.
Well, what's going to change? How?
Also, a map team is partial and cannot do a monthly update ongoing recommendation. Do you feel such a thing would not be useful or effective?
|
On October 21 2012 12:58 iamcaustic wrote:
That would be the case I've been making, yes.
I don't want to demean any of the points you've been making - they are for the most part solid and fair. However, resigning the entire task to mapping teams is silly, since we can actually do both at the same time and in all likelihood be more effective. What I've gathered from reading your posts is that simply because mapmaking teams can accomplish everything on their own, that they should. However, as evidenced by ESV, though it's possible it's certainly not easy. Nothing in any part of this arrangement means to interfere with mapmaking teams, as they should be working in tandem, as has been described. To parrot others, this can only help. I don't disagree that the teams can certainly step up their efforts individually, but you can't very well tell me that a collaborative effort won't help anything either, especially one that not only doesn't interfere with but actually assists those individual efforts.
|
On October 21 2012 08:55 Timetwister22 wrote:
caustic, you make some very valid points. If all mapmaking teams stepped up and put in the effort that Diamond has for ESV, the community would be more successful. This model could still very well work, but the problem is that it hasn't. This approach is not only easier on the mapping community, but on tournament organizers as well. It's an alternative approach that has potential to work better. If not, then we can just go back to teams. Yeah, I realize this is a bit stepping on toes and messy but I'm going to have to use Diamond as an example of why we can't have nice things.
Diamond is basically wholly unqualified to do whatever it is he's trying to do (I'm not even sure what exactly, that's a bad thing). The man has systematically been burning bridges with the people he needs rather than being diplomatic. LS's map gets changed by MLG without his permission, what does he do? He starts a drama on twitter, TL and Reddit, rather than opening a channel behind closed doors to diplomatically handle the situation. Look at what Blizzard did with the whole eSF vs KeSPA conflict. They said they would make a statement, then they probably jumped a mile in the air as eSF announced their boycot, it meant that they didn't have to make their statement, and they didn't, even though they promised they did. By not making a statement they do not alienate KeSPA, people whom they need. I'm sorry Diamond, but take a page out of Alex Garfield's book, constantly calling the people you need, Blizzard, MLG and whatever retards and saying they're dumb isn't furthering your goal in the slightest, it's counter-productive as. You need friends; not enemies.
Other than that he doesn't seem to realize how the market works at all when you talk with him about why mapmakers don't get paid. He has no clue how to attempt to reach that goal. He has admitted that he doesn't know the legal artistic rights of mapmakers.
He's a fine sample of the scene in general, the StarCraft scene for the most part is run by amateurs; not professionals. I would almost say that Diamond is hurting the interests he seeks to protect more than advancing them. Calling Blizzard or Sundance retards in public is not going to make them more likely to include your maps in their respective pool in case you didn't realize.
I'm going to have to side with iamcaustic on this particular issue in nigh fullest. It's a cute idea but you won't be listened to per se, especially if you call it a "union' as said before. Apart from that it's important to understand that tournaments have their reasons for static map pools as I outlined before which you must first understand in order to convince them to stop doing it. They aren't ignorant, they are in general shrewd businesspeople that have built larger tournaments than the KR Weekly, they are doing what they think is best for their business.
If this idea is to become a liaison to inform tournaments of the many fine maps that exist, they have no interest in that. If this idea is to become an actual player who holds power to assert its ideas and make tournament organizers listen. Good luck trying to find that authority. What are you going to do? Go on strike? Boycot the OSL?
As I outlined above, weekend tournaments have a very tough time introducing a new map into the pool that will get picked up eventually by other tournaments. Your biggest hopes at this moment are the IPL and NASL because they run longer tournaments which rewards players investment to learn new maps. However note that Kevin Knocke has said that players actually aren't that happy with Khaydaria being in the IPL pool because it's the only tournament that has this map and they don't really like it. It has a tendency to get picked last.
|
On October 21 2012 12:58 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:53 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 12:29 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out. Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed... This isn't a matter of egos. I don't think anyone here even qualifies for having one. On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.) I don't think anyone is questioning the necessity for passion. This is a discussion about how to best utilize that passion to achieve a desired result (better recognition of work for map makers and better representation of work in map pools). I don't believe there's anything negative or counter-productive about debating two optional paths that can be taken. So you think map teams is, on paper, the better way to go? That would be the case I've been making, yes.
Why not both? It's not a choice between one or the other. The only choice to be made is who goes to tournament organizers. Do we have team leaders, such as Diamond, to contact tournament organizers to promote their team's maps? Or do we set up a system where the union goes to tournament organizers and represents all teams and mapmakers? It just comes down to which method is best for the community. Aside that, I see no reason why both teams and the union couldn't exist at the same time. As I mentioned in the OP, the union does not replace teams. It is just an additional method in promoting maps.
|
On October 21 2012 13:08 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:58 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 12:53 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 12:29 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out. Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed... This isn't a matter of egos. I don't think anyone here even qualifies for having one. On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.) I don't think anyone is questioning the necessity for passion. This is a discussion about how to best utilize that passion to achieve a desired result (better recognition of work for map makers and better representation of work in map pools). I don't believe there's anything negative or counter-productive about debating two optional paths that can be taken. So you think map teams is, on paper, the better way to go? That would be the case I've been making, yes. Well, what's going to change? How? Also, a map team is partial and cannot do a monthly update ongoing recommendation. Do you feel such a thing would not be useful or effective?
It's all a matter of people stepping up to the plate and making the necessary changes. I outlined a few over the course of this discussion, which includes running map making teams in a more business-like fashion, having properly maintained websites and easily accessible business contacts, among other things. Seeing as there are signs of people stepping up and wanting to right the ship (the existence of this thread is evidence of such), I simply think directing that passion toward managing map making teams properly would provide better results and would avoid a lot of the potential pitfalls I've noted earlier.
A monthly community update of things in the mapmaking community could very well be useful and/or effective, but the real question to ask about that is this: do you really need a top-level "union" to achieve such a thing, particularly one as outlined in the OP? My opinion is "no". I think it'd be a fantastic project to undertake, but isn't an argument for why an overarching union would be the right path to take for the map making community.
----------------------------------------
On October 21 2012 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:58 iamcaustic wrote:
That would be the case I've been making, yes. I don't want to demean any of the points you've been making - they are for the most part solid and fair. However, resigning the entire task to mapping teams is silly, since we can actually do both at the same time and in all likelihood be more effective. What I've gathered from reading your posts is that simply because mapmaking teams can accomplish everything on their own, that they should. However, as evidenced by ESV, though it's possible it's certainly not easy. Nothing in any part of this arrangement means to interfere with mapmaking teams, as they should be working in tandem, as has been described. To parrot others, this can only help. I don't disagree that the teams can certainly step up their efforts individually, but you can't very well tell me that a collaborative effort won't help anything either, especially one that not only doesn't interfere with but actually assists those individual efforts.
I believe my response to this in the TL skype chat was "sure". My opinions are by no means authoritative, and there's nothing stopping people from giving this union idea a shot. I've expressed my concerns just as something to take into consideration if people do choose to move forward with the idea. I still feel directing energy toward running mapmaking teams better would be more efficient and viable, however.
----------------------------------------
On October 21 2012 13:26 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:58 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 12:53 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 12:29 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 11:26 iamcaustic wrote:On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:
There are two simple realities here:
1. e-sports tournaments are businesses.
2. most mapmakers are hobbyists.
There is nothing wrong or bad about either of these statements. Where the problem arises is when hobbyists complain about not being properly represented by businesses and having their work included in these businesses' products. There are only two solutions to this:
1. Hobbyists should stop expecting for-profit companies to feature their work, which is unreasonable
2. Take their hobby more seriously and run it like a business (for-profit, not-for-profit, or even volunteer, it doesn't matter)
Because the entire point of this thread is about getting maps into tournaments and having better representation for map makers, this thread falls under solution #2. Therefore, that's how I'm addressing things. Success! The point has arrived. I'm not sure if I'm representative of others here, but I do not feel entitled to have my work or others' be used. I just think it would make the scene better if new and better maps were readily incorporated. Of course there is a disconnect between 1 and 2. Mapmakers are not willing to go beyond a hobby level of involvement. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the cause. Unless I'm mistaken, since running a map team as a business won't happen (is this a surprise?), this is the most effective option we can think of. First, I'd like to say thank you for the much more reasonable response. My point was always there, I just simplified and clarified it to explain the angle I'm coming from. Like I said, I shouldn't have to hold hands on this -- the entire thread is based around the concept of legitimizing the work of map makers. Anyway, while you acknowledge the disconnect between the two realities, you both reject the second solution as "not going to happen" (yet ESV exists) and do not address how the union would bridge the disconnect. This is one of the main sources of my concerns and criticisms. On October 21 2012 10:50 EatThePath wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 iamcaustic wrote:For example, ensuring there is a functional, consistently managed website for your team. Having someone who can reach out and create business relations with tournament organizations (such as what Diamond does). Team Liquid, this community site, is in large part run by volunteers, yet look at it. That's what I'm getting at. It won't work without a dedicated and competent crew with a clear plan and vision. Agreed! This is probably the most difficult area of the scheme. The leadership will also be the workers, at least at first. (Is there a way they won't have to be? Is it better if they are?) There are two things at stake in choosing the council, independent of how it is done. 1.) They will need to be effective at the job of choosing maps to promote and presenting them, as well as hopefully making personal connections with tournament organizers. This means they have to be good mappers, first of all. They have to select a set of maps, continually reevaluate the selection, and articulate why they are good maps and what they will bring to the scene that current maps lack. They need to have good communications skills and website/graphics/post formatting/etc skills depending on what form this takes. They need to make inroads with TL and other SC2 community figures, some who work behind the scenes, others who are high visibility. Ideally, they will liaise with tournament organizers as well. (Tournaments aren't choosing union/committee maps, they're choosing a map someone (anyone) made that the union promoted.) 2.) Will this leave anyone out? I understand that it tends to create a club dynamic. The mechanics of council member selection will play a large part in how this is perceived. There's no reason it needs to seem or act exclusive. The core value of the council is map merit. This includes pushing the state of the art, part of which is welcoming and providing help for newcomers to mapmaking. Closely related to this is map critique. The council (and more generally the map community) must actively seek to increase their own understanding of maps and educate other segments of the community. Otherwise the legitimacy of map promotion is in question, another reason for fragmentation. This last requires democratic interplay. The only way to achieve this is through a strong culture of inclusion. This hasn't been the defining attribute of the map community thus far, but it's always been there. I don't know how it might be promoted in the mechanics of the organization. It must depend all or in part on the passion and honesty of the council and the community. Maps compete for attention, not mapmakers. That is, ultimately, a lot of variables to be considered. My consideration of them is another main source for my criticisms and concerns. That said, I've already laid out those criticisms and concerns in this thread; the next step is to try and find solutions if this union concept is ever to work out. Well as long as everyone is confident their ego has emerged unscathed... This isn't a matter of egos. I don't think anyone here even qualifies for having one. On October 21 2012 12:02 EatThePath wrote:
The entire project depends on passion. The only other motivations are glory of recognition (fleetingly compelling) and monetary compensation (not motivating for mappers and unlikely besides). I thought this was obvious, and a litany of shortcomings and reasons why it won't work struck me as undue negativity and counterproductive, which I have previously battled in this thread.
But let's use it as a reverse series of goals. Honestly I don't see any mechanism to elicit the work needed if the motivation isn't already there.
(ESV sort-of ties map promotion to a business model, but the promotion is a result of Diamond's vision and impetus -- it depends on passion.) I don't think anyone is questioning the necessity for passion. This is a discussion about how to best utilize that passion to achieve a desired result (better recognition of work for map makers and better representation of work in map pools). I don't believe there's anything negative or counter-productive about debating two optional paths that can be taken. So you think map teams is, on paper, the better way to go? That would be the case I've been making, yes. Why not both? It's not a choice between one or the other. The only choice to be made is who goes to tournament organizers. Do we have team leaders, such as Diamond, to contact tournament organizers to promote their team's maps? Or do we set up a system where the union goes to tournament organizers and represents all teams and mapmakers? It just comes down to which method is best for the community. Aside that, I see no reason why both teams and the union couldn't exist at the same time. As I mentioned in the OP, the union does not replace teams. It is just an additional method in promoting maps.
I think I've incidentally also answered you with my response above.
-------------------------------------
@SiskosGoatee: I tend to agree with the general theme of your post. Your comments about Diamond coincide with my opinion that map making teams could be doing better than they currently are. Your opinions of tournament motivations match my own, as well as some of the difficulties this proposed union might have in achieving its desired results.
At the end of the day, I feel the rise of this union idea has come from a general sentiment that "the team model isn't working". Rather, I believe the model hasn't been executed properly. If we assume that statement to be true, what prevents a more ambitious union model from also being mismanaged? That is my thought, and if that becomes the case, can have much greater repercussions on the reputation of the map making community as a whole than a single team flunking out.
|
On October 21 2012 14:27 iamcaustic wrote:
At the end of the day, I feel the rise of this union idea has come from a general sentiment that "the team model isn't working". Rather, I believe the model hasn't been executed properly. If we assume that statement to be true, what prevents a more ambitious union model from also being mismanaged? That is my thought, and if that becomes the case, can have much greater repercussions on the reputation of the map making community as a whole than a single team flunking out. I concur, it could be done better. I don't think most people of the GSL knows Steelseries sponsored Cloud Kingdom. What I feel needs to be done is:
1. Get an actual site going on ESV, make people want to come there and make it attractive. For every map you guys make, put it there with pretty and post adequate description of the thought process of the author and how it evolved, give it content so that people want to come there. Write some short bios of the mapmakers and what they feel about mapmaking and don't go whining there like a child about how stupid Blizzard or the MLG mappool is. Get content, get mapmaking tutorials out there, get a forum and let mapmakers interact.
2. Reach out more to the community in a positive way. All we see from ESV outside of the mapmaking circles is basically Diamond complaining about MLG.
3: Stop burning bridges with people you need, be diplomatic.
4: Actually try to understand why people do things to convince them. Blizzard is a rich as balls company that produced some of the greatest and msot critically acclaimed games ever, they aren't stupid. If they don't want to introduce depots they have a reason, if they want rocks on the third they have a reason.
However, apart from all that, understand that it probably won't ever be that profitable, supply and demand. There are far more maps being made than the tournament scene actually needs, the market is oversaturated so tournaments can affort to pay very little. If you ask too much, they will find someone who does it cheaper or for free.
|
On October 20 2012 15:48 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 15:36 lefix wrote:
i think this came off wrong. i don't think the mapmakers themselves want attention, but the maps do. neither do the mapmakers want to get any payment, they just want to see the maps being used and replacing 1-2 year old mediocre that should never have made it into competitive map pools in the first place. i don't think that anyone would disagree that we have better maps out there than some of those currently in use. and that's all it is about. Indeed, but I don't see how a union is going to do that. Tournaments will try out new maps if they think that will enhance their viewer numbers. Currently IPL is the only tournament consistently trying obscure maps and I applaud them but players have been complaining of having to play on unknown maps. Currently, the only tournament that can introduce new maps is GSL because of how their format works and the prestige it enjoys, players have the capacity, and quite simply no other choice, but to practice new GSL maps specifically when announced. But if a weekend tournament is going to do it. Do you think MKP is going to practice a new map for a weekend of MLG? He'll rather just complain about having to play on unknown maps. Which is probably why MLG continues to use old maps. IPLT and IPLFC can probably introduce new maps because they are more informal tournaments which offers a smaller price pool and gets played online. Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 15:37 EatThePath wrote:
Nobody's talking about money. wtf? The op is clearly talking about improving the standing, exposure, recognition and bartering power of melee mappers. It at no point talks about refreshing map pools though this could be an indirect result of improving the standing of mappers.
you do realize mapmakers dont earn a single cent from making maps, they deserve far more recognition than they do atm.
|
On October 21 2012 15:44 X3GoldDot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 15:48 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 20 2012 15:36 lefix wrote:
i think this came off wrong. i don't think the mapmakers themselves want attention, but the maps do. neither do the mapmakers want to get any payment, they just want to see the maps being used and replacing 1-2 year old mediocre that should never have made it into competitive map pools in the first place. i don't think that anyone would disagree that we have better maps out there than some of those currently in use. and that's all it is about. Indeed, but I don't see how a union is going to do that. Tournaments will try out new maps if they think that will enhance their viewer numbers. Currently IPL is the only tournament consistently trying obscure maps and I applaud them but players have been complaining of having to play on unknown maps. Currently, the only tournament that can introduce new maps is GSL because of how their format works and the prestige it enjoys, players have the capacity, and quite simply no other choice, but to practice new GSL maps specifically when announced. But if a weekend tournament is going to do it. Do you think MKP is going to practice a new map for a weekend of MLG? He'll rather just complain about having to play on unknown maps. Which is probably why MLG continues to use old maps. IPLT and IPLFC can probably introduce new maps because they are more informal tournaments which offers a smaller price pool and gets played online. On October 20 2012 15:37 EatThePath wrote:
Nobody's talking about money. wtf? The op is clearly talking about improving the standing, exposure, recognition and bartering power of melee mappers. It at no point talks about refreshing map pools though this could be an indirect result of improving the standing of mappers. you do realize mapmakers dont earn a single cent from making maps Yap, you know a lot of pros basically only get their traveling expenses covered right?
they deserve far more recognition than they do atm. I'd disagree.
|
Holy walls of text and tinfoil hats, how did this thread become this?
Timetwister,
It is a great idea that I fully support. I know several TPW members supports is as well. I dont know how much you have done behind the scenes so far but start hitting us up on skype, if you havent already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
