|
On October 22 2012 19:15 ulfryc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 08:28 monkalizer wrote:
I think there should be a joint effort to produce a set of really cool stuff for all the players that return for HOTS. High quality UMS maps as well as melee maps. To do this, you need to ramp up pressure on quality testing. I think there are many ideas that are good, both for UMS maps and for melee maps, but they only get ~60% of the way. We need to help each other to push projects up to that >90%. I think the council being discussed here should only be concerned with melee maps. Because melee and UMS maps have very different problems. There already are excellent community made melee maps, the just don't get noticed by to many people. However IMO there aren't any good UMS maps. I can't see how a union could get UMS mappers to put more work in there projects.
Hey man, Ling Ling Rocket is frickin' awesome! Seriously, I was killing myself laughing while playing. So enjoyable. But to be frank, I don't think Arcade maps need a union model, because Blizzard itself has put forth efforts to promote them. If your map is good, it'll get a Blizzard blog post like this, along with a slot in the featured section of the Arcade.
|
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:-
- Disagreements on which maps to highlight are less likely to happen. When you are picking a group of maps, it is usually the maps that get left out which people disagree with most. If you are only picking 1 map, the only thing that people can disagree with is whether that map is 'worthy'.
- Following on from the first point, maps don't get 'missed out'. With the monthly format, the maps that are eligible must have been created after the previous MotM. With the single map format it doesn't matter when the maps were created, as long as they are good enough.
- Right now were aren't trying to overhaul the entire map pool. Highlighting too many community maps makes it harder for tournament organisers to judge which are the best of the best. When 5 or so maps are getting picked every couple of months it's easy for someone to say 'well, which one do I pick?'. Focussing on 1 map at a time is more likely to get that map into tournament play (imo).
- Easier promotion. It's easier to promote 1 map specifically as a tournament map candidate than a group. We have already seen that posting your map on reddit can gain it a lot of exposure, regularly getting in to the top 5 stories. I don't think that would happen if we were presenting a group of maps rather than 1.
- It would be separate from MotM. If people still want MotM to be kept the same, this 'Map Spotlight' idea could be run in tandem with it but with a different focus and purpose.
Thoughts?
|
Pretty good suggestion honestly, I really like the idea of having a monthly spotlight of a signle map that way. Imlpement an interview with the author as well as a thorough description page of it and its history to generate content and attract viewers. Content is actually really important to make a spotlight work.
|
On October 22 2012 18:00 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote:
I may come back and write something more detailed later. There has been a lot of discussion since my last post. But I want to address two things that are sort of related.
You don't need to discuss me as a council member in order to illustrate your problems with the council idea in an emblematic way. I don't really want to be on the council; don't denounce the council idea because you have a problem with me (and/or I have a problem with you). Indeed, however, you were nominated which sort of illustrates, at least to me, the fundamental communication problem with this scene: 1: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that MLG, Blizzard etc don't make certain map pool and map changes due to stupidity or ignorance. As the tweet Timetwister linked showed. Sundance is well aware that there is a group of people who are displeased with his map pool. As the tweet also illustrated, he doesn't per se agree but is willing to listen. MLG and Blizzard are not stupid you know, they have built pretty large organizations, they know what they are doing, the reasoning behind their map pools and lack of neutral depots is not stupidity and ignorance, rather, it guards an ulterior purpose. 2: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that the vast majority of fans actually care about this perceived problem with map pools. I highly doubt that, majority of viewers has no understanding or a lot of thought put into it. A very large portion of viewers doesn't even play the game but just enjoys to watch casually. It's like complaining about the grass quality of a football field. The majority of viewers just don't think about it and don't care. MLG is well aware that a lot of people exist that think there are problems with his map pool, indeed, Diamond tweets this to him (aggressively) every other week. It is simply his opinion to respectfully disagree from a chiefly commercial perspective. This council may be able to advice him on what is a 'good map pool' for your definition of 'good map', but are you confident to say you can advice him on a map pool which brings him the most revenue? That is what he cares about, he has investors to answer to. I mean, take MLG versus Proleague, most people would argue it's a 'bad tournament', it was practically rigged to give an unfair advantage to NA players, it's a complete farce and a spit on the spirit of fair competition. Does Sundance care? Maybe he does somewhere but he likes viewer numbers more than fair competition. It ensures 3 things: 4 NA players in pool play, and 8 KeSPA players in pool play, and a KeSPA vs non KeSPA players in the finals, exactly what he believes will benefit his viewing numbers. Likewise, I have a feeling that tournaments are hesitant to try new maps because viewers don't quite like new maps as much as mapmakers do.
The average person isn't as blind to the issue as you might think.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/7634960/2012_Season_4_Lock_Incoming_-10_18_2012
There's what you might call a slightly overwhelming pattern in the comments.
|
On October 22 2012 22:01 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 18:00 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote:
I may come back and write something more detailed later. There has been a lot of discussion since my last post. But I want to address two things that are sort of related.
You don't need to discuss me as a council member in order to illustrate your problems with the council idea in an emblematic way. I don't really want to be on the council; don't denounce the council idea because you have a problem with me (and/or I have a problem with you). Indeed, however, you were nominated which sort of illustrates, at least to me, the fundamental communication problem with this scene: 1: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that MLG, Blizzard etc don't make certain map pool and map changes due to stupidity or ignorance. As the tweet Timetwister linked showed. Sundance is well aware that there is a group of people who are displeased with his map pool. As the tweet also illustrated, he doesn't per se agree but is willing to listen. MLG and Blizzard are not stupid you know, they have built pretty large organizations, they know what they are doing, the reasoning behind their map pools and lack of neutral depots is not stupidity and ignorance, rather, it guards an ulterior purpose. 2: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that the vast majority of fans actually care about this perceived problem with map pools. I highly doubt that, majority of viewers has no understanding or a lot of thought put into it. A very large portion of viewers doesn't even play the game but just enjoys to watch casually. It's like complaining about the grass quality of a football field. The majority of viewers just don't think about it and don't care. MLG is well aware that a lot of people exist that think there are problems with his map pool, indeed, Diamond tweets this to him (aggressively) every other week. It is simply his opinion to respectfully disagree from a chiefly commercial perspective. This council may be able to advice him on what is a 'good map pool' for your definition of 'good map', but are you confident to say you can advice him on a map pool which brings him the most revenue? That is what he cares about, he has investors to answer to. I mean, take MLG versus Proleague, most people would argue it's a 'bad tournament', it was practically rigged to give an unfair advantage to NA players, it's a complete farce and a spit on the spirit of fair competition. Does Sundance care? Maybe he does somewhere but he likes viewer numbers more than fair competition. It ensures 3 things: 4 NA players in pool play, and 8 KeSPA players in pool play, and a KeSPA vs non KeSPA players in the finals, exactly what he believes will benefit his viewing numbers. Likewise, I have a feeling that tournaments are hesitant to try new maps because viewers don't quite like new maps as much as mapmakers do. The average person isn't as blind to the issue as you might think. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/7634960/2012_Season_4_Lock_Incoming_-10_18_2012There's what you might call a slightly overwhelming pattern in the comments.
lmao, I'd not seen that. There is definitely a large amount of unrest in the community at the current stale state of the game and many want new maps to help alleviate that.
|
On October 22 2012 22:01 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 18:00 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote:
I may come back and write something more detailed later. There has been a lot of discussion since my last post. But I want to address two things that are sort of related.
You don't need to discuss me as a council member in order to illustrate your problems with the council idea in an emblematic way. I don't really want to be on the council; don't denounce the council idea because you have a problem with me (and/or I have a problem with you). Indeed, however, you were nominated which sort of illustrates, at least to me, the fundamental communication problem with this scene: 1: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that MLG, Blizzard etc don't make certain map pool and map changes due to stupidity or ignorance. As the tweet Timetwister linked showed. Sundance is well aware that there is a group of people who are displeased with his map pool. As the tweet also illustrated, he doesn't per se agree but is willing to listen. MLG and Blizzard are not stupid you know, they have built pretty large organizations, they know what they are doing, the reasoning behind their map pools and lack of neutral depots is not stupidity and ignorance, rather, it guards an ulterior purpose. 2: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that the vast majority of fans actually care about this perceived problem with map pools. I highly doubt that, majority of viewers has no understanding or a lot of thought put into it. A very large portion of viewers doesn't even play the game but just enjoys to watch casually. It's like complaining about the grass quality of a football field. The majority of viewers just don't think about it and don't care. MLG is well aware that a lot of people exist that think there are problems with his map pool, indeed, Diamond tweets this to him (aggressively) every other week. It is simply his opinion to respectfully disagree from a chiefly commercial perspective. This council may be able to advice him on what is a 'good map pool' for your definition of 'good map', but are you confident to say you can advice him on a map pool which brings him the most revenue? That is what he cares about, he has investors to answer to. I mean, take MLG versus Proleague, most people would argue it's a 'bad tournament', it was practically rigged to give an unfair advantage to NA players, it's a complete farce and a spit on the spirit of fair competition. Does Sundance care? Maybe he does somewhere but he likes viewer numbers more than fair competition. It ensures 3 things: 4 NA players in pool play, and 8 KeSPA players in pool play, and a KeSPA vs non KeSPA players in the finals, exactly what he believes will benefit his viewing numbers. Likewise, I have a feeling that tournaments are hesitant to try new maps because viewers don't quite like new maps as much as mapmakers do. The average person isn't as blind to the issue as you might think. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/7634960/2012_Season_4_Lock_Incoming_-10_18_2012There's what you might call a slightly overwhelming pattern in the comments. No!, this is the fallacy, the people who post on this site, on battle.net and on screddit are the people who care about map pools and come to talk about strategy and generally play this game competitively. If you want to believe screddit or TL the average league is like diamond or platinum.
MLG tends to pull in around 5 mil unique viewers, that is more than the amount of copies WoL has sold up tot his point, furthermore, half of the copies of WoL have never played the multiplayer and just play the single player. The majority of MLG viewers don't even play this game. They just watch.
This is also the things Blizzard has to deal with. Everyone I know who plays StarCraft knows the purpose of neutral depots. But you have to understand that so many people on the ladder know nothing about the competitive scene, they don't watch the GSL or know it even exists. They would be extremely confused by neutral depots wondering why their terran opponent put that at the bottom of their ramp and why their units aren't auto attacking it.
Those people don't go to TL, to the battle.net fora, to screddit to discuss SC2, so we never hear from the, but they exist, and Blizzard and MLG have to consider them.
|
On October 22 2012 23:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 22:01 NewSunshine wrote:On October 22 2012 18:00 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote:
I may come back and write something more detailed later. There has been a lot of discussion since my last post. But I want to address two things that are sort of related.
You don't need to discuss me as a council member in order to illustrate your problems with the council idea in an emblematic way. I don't really want to be on the council; don't denounce the council idea because you have a problem with me (and/or I have a problem with you). Indeed, however, you were nominated which sort of illustrates, at least to me, the fundamental communication problem with this scene: 1: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that MLG, Blizzard etc don't make certain map pool and map changes due to stupidity or ignorance. As the tweet Timetwister linked showed. Sundance is well aware that there is a group of people who are displeased with his map pool. As the tweet also illustrated, he doesn't per se agree but is willing to listen. MLG and Blizzard are not stupid you know, they have built pretty large organizations, they know what they are doing, the reasoning behind their map pools and lack of neutral depots is not stupidity and ignorance, rather, it guards an ulterior purpose. 2: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that the vast majority of fans actually care about this perceived problem with map pools. I highly doubt that, majority of viewers has no understanding or a lot of thought put into it. A very large portion of viewers doesn't even play the game but just enjoys to watch casually. It's like complaining about the grass quality of a football field. The majority of viewers just don't think about it and don't care. MLG is well aware that a lot of people exist that think there are problems with his map pool, indeed, Diamond tweets this to him (aggressively) every other week. It is simply his opinion to respectfully disagree from a chiefly commercial perspective. This council may be able to advice him on what is a 'good map pool' for your definition of 'good map', but are you confident to say you can advice him on a map pool which brings him the most revenue? That is what he cares about, he has investors to answer to. I mean, take MLG versus Proleague, most people would argue it's a 'bad tournament', it was practically rigged to give an unfair advantage to NA players, it's a complete farce and a spit on the spirit of fair competition. Does Sundance care? Maybe he does somewhere but he likes viewer numbers more than fair competition. It ensures 3 things: 4 NA players in pool play, and 8 KeSPA players in pool play, and a KeSPA vs non KeSPA players in the finals, exactly what he believes will benefit his viewing numbers. Likewise, I have a feeling that tournaments are hesitant to try new maps because viewers don't quite like new maps as much as mapmakers do. The average person isn't as blind to the issue as you might think. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/7634960/2012_Season_4_Lock_Incoming_-10_18_2012There's what you might call a slightly overwhelming pattern in the comments. No!, this is the fallacy, the people who post on this site, on battle.net and on screddit are the people who care about map pools and come to talk about strategy and generally play this game competitively. If you want to believe screddit or TL the average league is like diamond or platinum. MLG tends to pull in around 5 mil unique viewers, that is more than the amount of copies WoL has sold up tot his point, furthermore, half of the copies of WoL have never played the multiplayer and just play the single player. The majority of MLG viewers don't even play this game. They just watch. This is also the things Blizzard has to deal with. Everyone I know who plays StarCraft knows the purpose of neutral depots. But you have to understand that so many people on the ladder know nothing about the competitive scene, they don't watch the GSL or know it even exists. They would be extremely confused by neutral depots wondering why their terran opponent put that at the bottom of their ramp and why their units aren't auto attacking it. Those people don't go to TL, to the battle.net fora, to screddit to discuss SC2, so we never hear from the, but they exist, and Blizzard and MLG have to consider them.
That may be, but those people on BattleNet, reddit, etc. are the average players, as well as being spectators, and are decidedly more important than people who don't even play/understand the game. As long as casual spectators don't hate new maps, it's very possible to cater to the actual players of the game, without upsetting anyone who does not. The only worry is getting to that stage, with the tournament-map-pool-establishment which we face today.
|
On October 22 2012 23:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 22 2012 22:01 NewSunshine wrote:On October 22 2012 18:00 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote:
I may come back and write something more detailed later. There has been a lot of discussion since my last post. But I want to address two things that are sort of related.
You don't need to discuss me as a council member in order to illustrate your problems with the council idea in an emblematic way. I don't really want to be on the council; don't denounce the council idea because you have a problem with me (and/or I have a problem with you). Indeed, however, you were nominated which sort of illustrates, at least to me, the fundamental communication problem with this scene: 1: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that MLG, Blizzard etc don't make certain map pool and map changes due to stupidity or ignorance. As the tweet Timetwister linked showed. Sundance is well aware that there is a group of people who are displeased with his map pool. As the tweet also illustrated, he doesn't per se agree but is willing to listen. MLG and Blizzard are not stupid you know, they have built pretty large organizations, they know what they are doing, the reasoning behind their map pools and lack of neutral depots is not stupidity and ignorance, rather, it guards an ulterior purpose. 2: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that the vast majority of fans actually care about this perceived problem with map pools. I highly doubt that, majority of viewers has no understanding or a lot of thought put into it. A very large portion of viewers doesn't even play the game but just enjoys to watch casually. It's like complaining about the grass quality of a football field. The majority of viewers just don't think about it and don't care. MLG is well aware that a lot of people exist that think there are problems with his map pool, indeed, Diamond tweets this to him (aggressively) every other week. It is simply his opinion to respectfully disagree from a chiefly commercial perspective. This council may be able to advice him on what is a 'good map pool' for your definition of 'good map', but are you confident to say you can advice him on a map pool which brings him the most revenue? That is what he cares about, he has investors to answer to. I mean, take MLG versus Proleague, most people would argue it's a 'bad tournament', it was practically rigged to give an unfair advantage to NA players, it's a complete farce and a spit on the spirit of fair competition. Does Sundance care? Maybe he does somewhere but he likes viewer numbers more than fair competition. It ensures 3 things: 4 NA players in pool play, and 8 KeSPA players in pool play, and a KeSPA vs non KeSPA players in the finals, exactly what he believes will benefit his viewing numbers. Likewise, I have a feeling that tournaments are hesitant to try new maps because viewers don't quite like new maps as much as mapmakers do. The average person isn't as blind to the issue as you might think. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/7634960/2012_Season_4_Lock_Incoming_-10_18_2012There's what you might call a slightly overwhelming pattern in the comments. No!, this is the fallacy, the people who post on this site, on battle.net and on screddit are the people who care about map pools and come to talk about strategy and generally play this game competitively. If you want to believe screddit or TL the average league is like diamond or platinum. MLG tends to pull in around 5 mil unique viewers, that is more than the amount of copies WoL has sold up tot his point, furthermore, half of the copies of WoL have never played the multiplayer and just play the single player. The majority of MLG viewers don't even play this game. They just watch. This is also the things Blizzard has to deal with. Everyone I know who plays StarCraft knows the purpose of neutral depots. But you have to understand that so many people on the ladder know nothing about the competitive scene, they don't watch the GSL or know it even exists. They would be extremely confused by neutral depots wondering why their terran opponent put that at the bottom of their ramp and why their units aren't auto attacking it. Those people don't go to TL, to the battle.net fora, to screddit to discuss SC2, so we never hear from the, but they exist, and Blizzard and MLG have to consider them. That may be, but those people on BattleNet, reddit, etc. are the average players, as well as being spectators, and are decidedly more important than people who don't even play/understand the game. As long as casual spectators don't hate new maps, it's very possible to cater to the actual players of the game, without upsetting anyone who does not. The only worry is getting to that stage, with the tournament-map-pool-establishment which we face today. Maybe, maybe not, sundance and most tournaments seem to disagree, they are all well aware of the various voices that voice discontent with the map pool yet they systematically choose inaction. I cannot believe this is simply 'laziness', these are the same people that put extensive thought into weird' quad view' players and other nice luxuries as well as weird betting systems in chats for subscribers. Changing the map pool would be pretty easy as well as just copying the GSL pool. But they don't do that, and I cannot believe that this is not deliberate.
Like I said, do you really think that Sundance's unwillingness to change map pools is due to either indifference, ignorance or laziness when he clearly knows that Antiga Shipyard is not that popular? This man likes his viewer numbers at the very least.
|
On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:-
my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course).
|
On October 22 2012 23:44 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:- my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course).
Tournament organisers and players are far far far more critical than map makers when it comes to maps? I'm sorry but that's just not true, all you need to do is look at the MotM results to see how critical the judges are. These maps will be even more harshly judged because they will be judged by more (informed) people and they will not come around as often. No one in the mapping community wants a bad map to get in to a tournament, and there will be ample opportunity to express your thoughts on the maps. Will it be difficult to come to a consensus on whether a map is ready? Yeah definitely, but if everyone does agree then you know that map must be top notch.
Players are probably the next best judges of maps, but they can often only see maps from the narrow perspective of their race. They also struggle to see overlying concepts of maps (like CK's area control).
Tournament organisers, as they have shown and continue to show, know very little about maps.
On October 22 2012 23:32 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:28 NewSunshine wrote:On October 22 2012 23:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 22 2012 22:01 NewSunshine wrote:On October 22 2012 18:00 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote:
I may come back and write something more detailed later. There has been a lot of discussion since my last post. But I want to address two things that are sort of related.
You don't need to discuss me as a council member in order to illustrate your problems with the council idea in an emblematic way. I don't really want to be on the council; don't denounce the council idea because you have a problem with me (and/or I have a problem with you). Indeed, however, you were nominated which sort of illustrates, at least to me, the fundamental communication problem with this scene: 1: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that MLG, Blizzard etc don't make certain map pool and map changes due to stupidity or ignorance. As the tweet Timetwister linked showed. Sundance is well aware that there is a group of people who are displeased with his map pool. As the tweet also illustrated, he doesn't per se agree but is willing to listen. MLG and Blizzard are not stupid you know, they have built pretty large organizations, they know what they are doing, the reasoning behind their map pools and lack of neutral depots is not stupidity and ignorance, rather, it guards an ulterior purpose. 2: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that the vast majority of fans actually care about this perceived problem with map pools. I highly doubt that, majority of viewers has no understanding or a lot of thought put into it. A very large portion of viewers doesn't even play the game but just enjoys to watch casually. It's like complaining about the grass quality of a football field. The majority of viewers just don't think about it and don't care. MLG is well aware that a lot of people exist that think there are problems with his map pool, indeed, Diamond tweets this to him (aggressively) every other week. It is simply his opinion to respectfully disagree from a chiefly commercial perspective. This council may be able to advice him on what is a 'good map pool' for your definition of 'good map', but are you confident to say you can advice him on a map pool which brings him the most revenue? That is what he cares about, he has investors to answer to. I mean, take MLG versus Proleague, most people would argue it's a 'bad tournament', it was practically rigged to give an unfair advantage to NA players, it's a complete farce and a spit on the spirit of fair competition. Does Sundance care? Maybe he does somewhere but he likes viewer numbers more than fair competition. It ensures 3 things: 4 NA players in pool play, and 8 KeSPA players in pool play, and a KeSPA vs non KeSPA players in the finals, exactly what he believes will benefit his viewing numbers. Likewise, I have a feeling that tournaments are hesitant to try new maps because viewers don't quite like new maps as much as mapmakers do. The average person isn't as blind to the issue as you might think. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/7634960/2012_Season_4_Lock_Incoming_-10_18_2012There's what you might call a slightly overwhelming pattern in the comments. No!, this is the fallacy, the people who post on this site, on battle.net and on screddit are the people who care about map pools and come to talk about strategy and generally play this game competitively. If you want to believe screddit or TL the average league is like diamond or platinum. MLG tends to pull in around 5 mil unique viewers, that is more than the amount of copies WoL has sold up tot his point, furthermore, half of the copies of WoL have never played the multiplayer and just play the single player. The majority of MLG viewers don't even play this game. They just watch. This is also the things Blizzard has to deal with. Everyone I know who plays StarCraft knows the purpose of neutral depots. But you have to understand that so many people on the ladder know nothing about the competitive scene, they don't watch the GSL or know it even exists. They would be extremely confused by neutral depots wondering why their terran opponent put that at the bottom of their ramp and why their units aren't auto attacking it. Those people don't go to TL, to the battle.net fora, to screddit to discuss SC2, so we never hear from the, but they exist, and Blizzard and MLG have to consider them. That may be, but those people on BattleNet, reddit, etc. are the average players, as well as being spectators, and are decidedly more important than people who don't even play/understand the game. As long as casual spectators don't hate new maps, it's very possible to cater to the actual players of the game, without upsetting anyone who does not. The only worry is getting to that stage, with the tournament-map-pool-establishment which we face today. Maybe, maybe not, sundance and most tournaments seem to disagree, they are all well aware of the various voices that voice discontent with the map pool yet they systematically choose inaction. I cannot believe this is simply 'laziness', these are the same people that put extensive thought into weird' quad view' players and other nice luxuries as well as weird betting systems in chats for subscribers. Changing the map pool would be pretty easy as well as just copying the GSL pool. But they don't do that, and I cannot believe that this is not deliberate. Like I said, do you really think that Sundance's unwillingness to change map pools is due to either indifference, ignorance or laziness when he clearly knows that Antiga Shipyard is not that popular? This man likes his viewer numbers at the very least.
MLG are so slow to change their map pool because they don't think it matters very much. They are wrong.
|
On October 22 2012 23:44 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:- my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course). Well, it's going to be subjective anyway when you come to this. What is a good map and not in the end is inherently subjective. To let out a little secret, I actually love Antiga Shipyard, I love playing on it, I love the games it creates, I love watching it. I like the difficulty in establishing a fourth and the strength of drops and multi pronged attacks on this map, the importance of centre control.
It's an unpopular opinion for sure, but can you say I'm wrong and therefore don't understand the game? Leenock and Stephano have both said they love Antiga as well, do they not understand the game?
This is sort of the downwards map pool problem, which maps are bad is pretty subjective, the upwards map pool problem is even worse, which maps are to replace those maps? People are divided on that even more.
On October 23 2012 00:13 OxyGenesis wrote:
MLG are so slow to change their map pool because they don't think it matters very much. They are wrong.
I'm sorry, but you are very naïve if you think that this stuff is not carefully weighed in meetings between people who have all the numbers to debate this. MLG is an actual company which has investors to answer to. Let's not forget that MLG was the first tournament who modified maps to give ramps a different footprint to stop lowground wallins (bad for viewership) even before neutral depots were introduced. They are very much aware of such issues and weigh their choices carefully.
Edit: even so, let's say they believe it doesn't matter. I will believe them over you if it comes to a yes no game. They have built from nothing one of the biggest esports leagues out there today. They know what they are doing and how to make their league attractive, you have no such experience or results to speak for them.
|
On October 23 2012 00:16 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:44 a176 wrote:On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:- my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course). Well, it's going to be subjective anyway when you come to this. What is a good map and not in the end is inherently subjective. To let out a little secret, I actually love Antiga Shipyard, I love playing on it, I love the games it creates, I love watching it. I like the difficulty in establishing a fourth and the strength of drops and multi pronged attacks on this map, the importance of centre control. It's an unpopular opinion for sure, but can you say I'm wrong and therefore don't understand the game? Leenock and Stephano have both said they love Antiga as well, do they not understand the game? This is sort of the downwards map pool problem, which maps are bad is pretty subjective, the upwards map pool problem is even worse, which maps are to replace those maps? People are divided on that even more. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:13 OxyGenesis wrote:
MLG are so slow to change their map pool because they don't think it matters very much. They are wrong. I'm sorry, but you are very naïve if you think that this stuff is not carefully weighed in meetings between people who have all the numbers to debate this. MLG is an actual company which has investors to answer to. Let's not forget that MLG was the first tournament who modified maps to give ramps a different footprint to stop lowground wallins (bad for viewership) even before neutral depots were introduced. They are very much aware of such issues and weigh their choices carefully. Edit: even so, let's say they believe it doesn't matter. I will believe them over you if it comes to a yes no game. They have built from nothing one of the biggest esports leagues out there today. They know what they are doing and how to make their league attractive, you have no such experience or results to speak for them.
Ohh you're the guy I was debating on reddit? That explains a lot 
MLG's experience means that they know all about competitive gaming. They know that an unfair competition is incredibly bad for a tournament. They probably went to players/teams when they first decided to have an SC2 tournament and asked them what maps were balanced and built the map pool around that. After a while they probably felt that they had a balanced pool and moved on to other priorities. I'm not overly familiar with MLG's past but how many RTS games have they had before? They made a name for themselves with Halo tournaments, and maps in a halo competition have a very different role to in an RTS. In Halo, you can look at stats like 'which team wins more often on this map?' and judge from that whether the map is a good one. That's probably what Sundance wanted when he wrote that tweet. In SC2, the stats don't tell you the whole story. Because of the strategy in SC2, the way a map plays out is just as important as the stats. Maps getting too 'figured out' is a problem because it creates stale samey play.
At the end of the day neither you nor I know why MLG refuse to update their map pool because they don't say why. You can say 'I trust them, they are one of the largest eSports companies in the world, they know what they are doing'. I can say 'I wish MLG would introduce new maps in to the pool as I love seeing how players play out new maps' and we can both be 'right'.
|
On October 23 2012 00:16 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:44 a176 wrote:On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:- my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course). Well, it's going to be subjective anyway when you come to this. What is a good map and not in the end is inherently subjective. To let out a little secret, I actually love Antiga Shipyard, I love playing on it, I love the games it creates, I love watching it. I like the difficulty in establishing a fourth and the strength of drops and multi pronged attacks on this map, the importance of centre control. It's an unpopular opinion for sure, but can you say I'm wrong and therefore don't understand the game? Leenock and Stephano have both said they love Antiga as well, do they not understand the game? This is sort of the downwards map pool problem, which maps are bad is pretty subjective, the upwards map pool problem is even worse, which maps are to replace those maps? People are divided on that even more.
I have been following this thread, and I have been trying to formulate a very thoughtful, non-reactionary, well written post. But with all of the discussion surrounding the decline of SC2, and the renewed leniency on discussion of game design posts, my thoughts have been spiraling to that of e-book proportions. So at the moment I hesitiate to weigh in at length.
However, this quote here kind of sticks at the heart of my "objection" to this union idea, not just in the way it was first presented in the OP, but even to the refinement of the idea that was described later. Quite simply, I don't see there being enough of a consensus on "what maps are good" or even more divisive "what map(s) ought to be promoted" for this to have any meaningfulness either in fact or in effect. While the passion and drive to find a solution to getting new/custom maps into tournament(/ladder) map pools is admirable, I think the solution is going to be something different than what is envisioned here, at least to some degree.
I hate to bail without much substance, but I really cannot expound upon it any more at this time. I just thought it was important to add a voice to the side of "not universally accepted" before it was assumed that silence means consent -- there seem to be a lot of mappers who have not weighed in yet in any way.
EDIT: speeling
|
On October 23 2012 00:16 SiskosGoatee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 23:44 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:- my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course). Well, it's going to be subjective anyway when you come to this. What is a good map and not in the end is inherently subjective. To let out a little secret, I actually love Antiga Shipyard, I love playing on it, I love the games it creates, I love watching it. I like the difficulty in establishing a fourth and the strength of drops and multi pronged attacks on this map, the importance of centre control. It's an unpopular opinion for sure, but can you say I'm wrong and therefore don't understand the game? Leenock and Stephano have both said they love Antiga as well, do they not understand the game? This is sort of the downwards map pool problem, which maps are bad is pretty subjective, the upwards map pool problem is even worse, which maps are to replace those maps? People are divided on that even more. On October 23 2012 00:13 OxyGenesis wrote:
MLG are so slow to change their map pool because they don't think it matters very much. They are wrong. I'm sorry, but you are very naïve if you think that this stuff is not carefully weighed in meetings between people who have all the numbers to debate this. MLG is an actual company which has investors to answer to. Let's not forget that MLG was the first tournament who modified maps to give ramps a different footprint to stop lowground wallins (bad for viewership) even before neutral depots were introduced. They are very much aware of such issues and weigh their choices carefully. Edit: even so, let's say they believe it doesn't matter. I will believe them over you if it comes to a yes no game. They have built from nothing one of the biggest esports leagues out there today. They know what they are doing and how to make their league attractive, you have no such experience or results to speak for them.
I have difficulties seeing a relation between a subjectively motivated request (OxyGenesis) for a faster map rotation and your remark on how MLG is a professional run league and a forum user being less experienced than MLG...
To be honest, I would love to see more map rotation and think watching would have more appeal for experienced followers as well as newbies watchers. Also it would be good for the game to have maps that are not 100% "played through". I was so happy about atlantis spaceship and cloud kingdom being used as they are two of the best custom maps out there.
Yet I want to point out that I do not see enough maps from the community that fit to the current metagame and that are polished enough to be used at this very moment.
In my opinion map makers therefore should focus on making better maps instead of "marketing maps and the map maker's name". You do not ask players to organize tournaments and meet sponsors all the time.
A council/union/whatever could be the organization needed here. map making teams have split the community in a way. on the one hand teams promoted their maps, even bad ones. On the other hand teams also stopped commenting a lot on each other's maps or maps here in the forums openly, as if being afraid to give away too much. I hate to say something negative about diamond who did a lot of great stuff for sc2 map making (e.g. with the korean weekly format) but him promoting esv maps as the hottest shit ever no matter what the actual quality just sent the wrong signal. Also the whole esv vs tpw situation really silenced any productive discussion on a wider stage.
Against this background the council-thing could be great to make better maps, first and foremost because it would be an public format to discuss maps openly. The council members (imho) should rather direct discussion, channel ideas... but also highlight really good ones, for the community as an example and four tournaments as a possible addition to the map pool.
Oh, and on another note: you seem to be someone with a healthy amount of pessimism/realism, yet the outcome for everybody would be bigger if everybody in this thread would try to focus on adding something to the discussion in a positive way instead of saying some person's perspective is irrelevant.
EDIT: Maybe the council could mainly be a format to discuss what maps needs and decide on good maps, eventually to help map makers make better maps. That is why the council needs to reach beyond map makers when it comes to selecting individuals for this board. I would not want to select maps at a point in time where i am about to finish a new map that i want to compete. That would just not make sense.
EDIT2: another thing I forgot and i do not fine i way to implement it: if we do not get something like the council, we will remain in a position where sometimes a map ends up being good because a map maker really put thought into it (cloud kingdom) or a bunch of people contributed and made something solid (ohana). most of the time map maker would need to put enegy in promoting maps and that totally send the wrong signal imho. So often we see big threads on some random map. we are about to drown in junk and even the most motivated caster/player/tournament organizer interested in custom melee maps has problem finding some good map. this goes a bit off-topic really, but there is quite some over-production of unneeded maps. If nothing changes than the next custom map getting more attention will be the one that resembles the current game the most (something between ohana and ck for example) and that has some boring theme most people can connect to and that is promoted as if it was the most interesting thing ever. Maybe others are interested into promoting boring things, i am not.
i will write a more structured post with some pros and cons tomorrow. still at work but i felt like jumping in.
|
On October 23 2012 00:59 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:16 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 22 2012 23:44 a176 wrote:On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:- my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course). Well, it's going to be subjective anyway when you come to this. What is a good map and not in the end is inherently subjective. To let out a little secret, I actually love Antiga Shipyard, I love playing on it, I love the games it creates, I love watching it. I like the difficulty in establishing a fourth and the strength of drops and multi pronged attacks on this map, the importance of centre control. It's an unpopular opinion for sure, but can you say I'm wrong and therefore don't understand the game? Leenock and Stephano have both said they love Antiga as well, do they not understand the game? This is sort of the downwards map pool problem, which maps are bad is pretty subjective, the upwards map pool problem is even worse, which maps are to replace those maps? People are divided on that even more. On October 23 2012 00:13 OxyGenesis wrote:
MLG are so slow to change their map pool because they don't think it matters very much. They are wrong. I'm sorry, but you are very naïve if you think that this stuff is not carefully weighed in meetings between people who have all the numbers to debate this. MLG is an actual company which has investors to answer to. Let's not forget that MLG was the first tournament who modified maps to give ramps a different footprint to stop lowground wallins (bad for viewership) even before neutral depots were introduced. They are very much aware of such issues and weigh their choices carefully. Edit: even so, let's say they believe it doesn't matter. I will believe them over you if it comes to a yes no game. They have built from nothing one of the biggest esports leagues out there today. They know what they are doing and how to make their league attractive, you have no such experience or results to speak for them. Ohh you're the guy I was debating on reddit? That explains a lot What? No I don't think we ever debated anything on reddit. I do have an account there but I'm not active. I do not remember you. (unless you have another nickname therE)
MLG's experience means that they know all about competitive gaming. They know that an unfair competition is incredibly bad for a tournament. Did you see the tournament format of the MLG vs Proleague? It's practically rigged.. it's designed to guarantee 4 NA players and 8 KesPA players a seed. It's the opposite of fair, and no doubt designed with that in mind. Unfair competition doesn't do a lot for viewer numbers I'm afraid in the end. We're talking about people who keep the extended series in despite massive complaint.
They probably went to players/teams when they first decided to have an SC2 tournament and asked them what maps were balanced and built the map pool around that. After a while they probably felt that they had a balanced pool and moved on to other priorities. I'm not overly familiar with MLG's past but how many RTS games have they had before? They made a name for themselves with Halo tournaments, and maps in a halo competition have a very different role to in an RTS. In Halo, you can look at stats like 'which team wins more often on this map?' and judge from that whether the map is a good one. That's probably what Sundance wanted when he wrote that tweet. In SC2, the stats don't tell you the whole story. Because of the strategy in SC2, the way a map plays out is just as important as the stats. Maps getting too 'figured out' is a problem because it creates stale samey play. I'm afraid sundance cares about viewer numbers and nothing more. If a map is statistically likely to generate a lot of VOD views he keeps it, if it doesn´t he removes it.
At the end of the day neither you nor I know why MLG refuse to update their map pool because they don't say why. You can say 'I trust them, they are one of the largest eSports companies in the world, they know what they are doing'. I can say 'I wish MLG would introduce new maps in to the pool as I love seeing how players play out new maps' and we can both be 'right'. They know what they are doing in regardes to maximizing viewers which is all they care about, they don't care for fairness, the bizarre nature of their qualifiers and their pool play stuff demonstrates they care about viewer numbers, not fairness. They have the most convoluted and unfair tournament structures designed by man simply to maximize viewer numbers. The only reason pool play exists is so that you can have HuK vs Parting on the first day of playing rather than HuK or Parting versus some unknown signup in the open bracket.
On October 23 2012 01:02 Samro225am wrote:
I have difficulties seeing a relation between a subjectively motivated request (OxyGenesis) for a faster map rotation and your remark on how MLG is a professional run league and a forum user being less experienced than MLG... I believe MLG's slower rotation is deliberate and what he believes gives him more viewers. As outlined before, a general trend is noticeable:
- Small weekend tournaments seldom introduce new maps.
- Large tournaments spanning a month or two tend to introduce new maps. (GSL, NASL, IPTL)
An obvious explanation to this is that players do not have the time to learn new maps for one small tournament week with no guarantee that map will remain popular and tournaments are therefore afraid that less notable players will sign up.
To be honest, I would love to see more map rotation and think watching would have more appeal for experienced followers as well as newbies watchers. Also it would be good for the game to have maps that are not 100% "played through". I was so happy about atlantis spaceship and cloud kingdom being used as they are two of the best custom maps out there. I like CK, I don't like Atlantis Spacebear, which is a controversial map, it's clear from casts that Artosis doesn't like it and considers it to big and too bad for Terran. Even though statistically this isn't true and there seems to be a very shallow correlation at best between large maps and being bad for Terran.
|
One of the major points being presented, which challenges this idea of unity and council, has been the idea that we can generally agree that the current map pool is stale, but what to replace it with? Of course this is one of the challenges that would face the council, in part that's why it would exist. A group of members would be assembled to promote mapmaking in general, and more specifically every map made on a monthly basis. I struggle to imagine an entity that does such a thing, yet cannot come to a reasonable consensus on which maps are best, the end result being that we're bringing the mapmaking community into focus, vaguely, which just sounds stupid. The point of this is to make things easier for the uncommitted to take in, and if a panel of judges can agree which maps are best for MotM(for instance), then I don't see how the same cannot be accomplished here.
|
On October 23 2012 01:24 NewSunshine wrote:
One of the major points being presented, which challenges this idea of unity and council, has been the idea that we can generally agree that the current map pool is stale, but what to replace it with? Of course this is one of the challenges that would face the council, in part that's why it would exist. A group of members would be assembled to promote mapmaking in general, and more specifically every map made on a monthly basis. I struggle to imagine an entity that does such a thing, yet cannot come to a reasonable consensus on which maps are best, the end result being that we're bringing the mapmaking community into focus, vaguely, which just sounds stupid. The point of this is to make things easier for the uncommitted to take in, and if a panel of judges can agree which maps are best for MotM(for instance), then I don't see how the same cannot be accomplished here. To further extremify your point, in a lot of MotM's juries at all couldn't agree which map was the best if you see the scores. They just take the average in the end and end up being pretty divided.
I really feel NASL or IPL are our best shot, they were wiling to try out new maps before, open a dialogue with them to see if you can make something happen. NASL loves to add 'segments', I feel a segment to invite progamers to play showmatches on new maps to get them in the public eye would be a great start.
|
On October 23 2012 01:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:24 NewSunshine wrote:
One of the major points being presented, which challenges this idea of unity and council, has been the idea that we can generally agree that the current map pool is stale, but what to replace it with? Of course this is one of the challenges that would face the council, in part that's why it would exist. A group of members would be assembled to promote mapmaking in general, and more specifically every map made on a monthly basis. I struggle to imagine an entity that does such a thing, yet cannot come to a reasonable consensus on which maps are best, the end result being that we're bringing the mapmaking community into focus, vaguely, which just sounds stupid. The point of this is to make things easier for the uncommitted to take in, and if a panel of judges can agree which maps are best for MotM(for instance), then I don't see how the same cannot be accomplished here. To further extremify your point, in a lot of MotM's juries at all couldn't agree which map was the best if you see the scores. They just take the average in the end and end up being pretty divided. I really feel NASL or IPL are our best shot, they were wiling to try out new maps before, open a dialogue with them to see if you can make something happen. NASL loves to add 'segments', I feel a segment to invite progamers to play showmatches on new maps to get them in the public eye would be a great start.
possibly the starting point for such a request towards any league than would be (1.) an open discussion here what maps should be included or (2.) what kind of maps are needed and therefore should be specifically produced(!) as well as a council-thing taken shape, e.g. person stepping up who are willing to attend the process and lead the discussion with tournament-organizers as the chosen melee map making representative(s).
|
On October 23 2012 01:36 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 23 2012 01:24 NewSunshine wrote:
One of the major points being presented, which challenges this idea of unity and council, has been the idea that we can generally agree that the current map pool is stale, but what to replace it with? Of course this is one of the challenges that would face the council, in part that's why it would exist. A group of members would be assembled to promote mapmaking in general, and more specifically every map made on a monthly basis. I struggle to imagine an entity that does such a thing, yet cannot come to a reasonable consensus on which maps are best, the end result being that we're bringing the mapmaking community into focus, vaguely, which just sounds stupid. The point of this is to make things easier for the uncommitted to take in, and if a panel of judges can agree which maps are best for MotM(for instance), then I don't see how the same cannot be accomplished here. To further extremify your point, in a lot of MotM's juries at all couldn't agree which map was the best if you see the scores. They just take the average in the end and end up being pretty divided. I really feel NASL or IPL are our best shot, they were wiling to try out new maps before, open a dialogue with them to see if you can make something happen. NASL loves to add 'segments', I feel a segment to invite progamers to play showmatches on new maps to get them in the public eye would be a great start. possibly the starting point for such a request towards any league than would be (1.) an open discussion here what maps should be included or (2.) what kind of maps are needed and therefore should be specifically produced(!) as well as a council-thing taken shape, e.g. person stepping up who are willing to attend the process and lead the discussion with tournament-organizers as the chosen melee map making representative(s). Well, honestly, the maps themselves aren't even that important since they can showcase one basically every week, it'd just be really cool if they actually did it. A showmatch on community maps between two pros every week to give them exposure. NASL seems like the kind of league that is in for this kind of stuff to me so gogogog Diamond, open a dialogue and don't call them retarded on twitter.
|
On October 23 2012 01:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:36 Samro225am wrote:On October 23 2012 01:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 23 2012 01:24 NewSunshine wrote:
One of the major points being presented, which challenges this idea of unity and council, has been the idea that we can generally agree that the current map pool is stale, but what to replace it with? Of course this is one of the challenges that would face the council, in part that's why it would exist. A group of members would be assembled to promote mapmaking in general, and more specifically every map made on a monthly basis. I struggle to imagine an entity that does such a thing, yet cannot come to a reasonable consensus on which maps are best, the end result being that we're bringing the mapmaking community into focus, vaguely, which just sounds stupid. The point of this is to make things easier for the uncommitted to take in, and if a panel of judges can agree which maps are best for MotM(for instance), then I don't see how the same cannot be accomplished here. To further extremify your point, in a lot of MotM's juries at all couldn't agree which map was the best if you see the scores. They just take the average in the end and end up being pretty divided. I really feel NASL or IPL are our best shot, they were wiling to try out new maps before, open a dialogue with them to see if you can make something happen. NASL loves to add 'segments', I feel a segment to invite progamers to play showmatches on new maps to get them in the public eye would be a great start. possibly the starting point for such a request towards any league than would be (1.) an open discussion here what maps should be included or (2.) what kind of maps are needed and therefore should be specifically produced(!) as well as a council-thing taken shape, e.g. person stepping up who are willing to attend the process and lead the discussion with tournament-organizers as the chosen melee map making representative(s). Well, honestly, the maps themselves aren't even that important since they can showcase one basically every week, it'd just be really cool if they actually did it. A showmatch on community maps between two pros every week to give them exposure. NASL seems like the kind of league that is in for this kind of stuff to me so gogogog Diamond, open a dialogue and don't call them retarded on twitter.
there are not nearly enough good maps for a weekly imo. There is the danger that too experimental maps or too boring maps and even badly constructed or looking maps are a turn-off for players and audience alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
