It doesn’t take much to realize that maps play a huge role in the competitive Starcraft 2 scene. However, Blizzard and many major tournaments seem to like the idea of keeping around stale and over used maps. This has lead to thousands of games on maps like Antiga Shipyard and Shakuras Plateau. Some might even consider that newer maps such as Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak have seen the spotlight for too long. So, what can be done?
Currently, there isn't really an easy way to find maps. You have to sort through multiple sources, including TL map threads and mapmaking team announcements. As a result, I feel there needs to be some sort of organized source of which tournament organizers, or even those who are just interested, to easily find quality melee maps to use and play on.
Additionally, I feel the entire Starcraft 2 community as a whole needs a method to voice their thoughts about maps in an organized manner. Over time, some changes have come from several thread posts on B.net, TL, and reddit. Imagine how much quicker and more powerful these changes would be if all those threads and complaints were expressed through a popular, well known, trusted, and meaningful community voice. Could be quite powerful.
Overall, the goal of this union would be to help advocate maps for the mapmaking community, and give the general sc2 community a more powerful method to express their voices on maps. Of course, this should by no means detract the purpose of mapmaking teams or individual thread posts about maps. The union is just meant to be an advocate for achieving the overall goals of mapmaking.
Power
If there is to be any sort of power behind what the union says or does, there needs to be some sort of meaning behind its words. In other words, people need to care. Lots and lots of people. Of course, the union probably won’t be consisted of well known community casters, players, and figures. However, if the union finds ways to get the general sc2 community involved, the union may very well end up speaking for thousands of people on the subject of maps. Having thousands of people demanding change under a single voice can be very, very powerful. For example, a releasing statement coming from the union such as, “8,653 out of 10,104 people surveyed last week do not like watching games on Antiga Shipyard” might be enough to get Antiga Shipyard out of tournament map pools.
The Council
First and foremost, we will need some sort of method to run the union. A council style power system made up of 7 members seems to be most fitting, of which would be responsible for deciding how to go about achieving the goals that the community would like to see achieved. The council members can start discussing on what particular things they could do to help achieve such goals once the council has been formed. However, determining the methods of filling the initial council positions, and all other open council positions in the future, is quite problematic.
This has been the main issue blocking progress with this idea. The method of which we choose the initial set of council members is quite important, yet there hasn't been much discussion on how we should go about doing it. Some want an election style, while others would like a discussion. Thus, suggested methods would be greatly appreciated.
Feedback
The rewording and restructuring of this topic was meant provide a more open ended approach to the topic. Of course, no numbers or names for anything I listed are final. If the community wants 9 people on the council instead of 7, so be it. If the community would rather call this an Assembly instead of a Union, I'm all for it. With that said, if there is anything you would like to suggest, such as a new name or different method of choosing council members, feel free to post. Any other ideas are more than welcome as well.
Original Discussion Starter
Pages 1-11 discuss the original version of this post.
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.
This would not replace mapmaking teams. This would act much like the how tournament leagues, such as GSL, group pros and pro teams together in an organized league for the sake of promoting Starcraft 2, pro players, and pro teams. As a bonus, this could allow for upcoming mappers to gain attention and possibly be picked up by a team. If anything, this would just improve the current mapmaking team system.
Organization
-This union would be run by a council consisting of 3-7 members, and a central organizer. Council members would be appointed by a vote held between current council members. The first initial members will be appointed based on current roles in community leadership. The council members would be responsible for writing up the monthly recap, host motm, or any other union related duties.
-The central organizer would be a council member who volunteers for the job, or voted in if there are multiple volunteers. The central organizer would be responsible for handling questions, requests, and PM’s from tournament organizers.
-There would be a central TL account that represents the union, and would be accessible by those who ran it. Thus giving a sense of legitimacy to those who may not know much about the melee mapmaking community and the names behind it. This would also allow new union council members to easily replace retiring council members.
-A website is also a possibility, and would be pretty awesome. However, that would take a lot more time to create and sustain. But if someone is willing to put in the work, it would be a nice bonus.
Services
- Activities and tournaments the mapmaking community currently has could be merged under the union. One such example, if motm were merged under the council, the council members would be responsible for deciding who judges and how it's organized.
- A chat channel under the name of the union could be created on b.net to make it easier to find games on custom melee maps.
- The union would be the well known go-to for all tournament organizers who are looking to contact individual map makers and maybe even map making teams to use their maps.
- The union would do a monthly recap that would list noteworthy maps, aesthetic pictures, and ideas that were posted during the past month. Furthermore, it would list all upcoming events and announcements. This would allow tournament organizers, and those interested in neat melee maps, a one stop-shop to look at the best of what the map making community has accomplished over the past month and what is to come.
-A "Recommended Map Pool" could be promoted by the union. This would be a fairly stable map pool that would only change if a map(s) came along that was worth replacing a map(s) currently in the pool. Thanks to ulfryc for the suggestion!
Needs
In order for this to be reality, we obviously need people to fulfill the council and organizer slots. Furthermore, since this council will most likely be made up of those who are volunteering their time between other duties, council members might not have the time to write up lengthy council posts or design graphics and art for the posts. Thus, a writer and graphic designer could possibly come into play.
Feedback
I have a feeling I might be missing a few notes. Thus, I am asking for anyone willing to give your feedback on this idea. Are there things I'm missing or need to clarify? Do you have additional ideas to add? Share it, and I will happily read it and I will edit the OP accordingly.
Notable Quotes from the Discussion
Here are a few quotes that represent main topics of discussion. Click on the names to read the full post of which they came from. Am I missing one? Let me know.
"Creating another level of pseudo-bureaucracy isn't the right way to go about fixing the current issues we have as melee mapmakers. The focus should be on fixing and improving upon what's already there." -iamcaustic
"This is an issue of teams failing to do what they need to be taken seriously." -iamcaustic
"The only solution to this problem which I see, is having one entity (not one per team) be responsible for easily communicating the thoughts of the map making scene to everyone who is not part of it (tournament organizers, pro players, casters, heck the whole community)." -ulfryc
"As I mentioned in the OP, the union does not replace teams. It is just an additional method in promoting maps." -Timetwister22
"If the teams are not filling the roles they could be doing, it would not hurt to have a new organization do them. Considering the state of the current teams, something needs to change." -Timmay
"Combining into one union will let fewer people who do organisational stuff achieve more. Thus I hope it will actually give us a better PR and stronger voice in the community as a group, while also letting us focus on the mapmaking aspect more." -Ragoo
"This is not a takeover of the map scene. It's a map advocacy group." -EatThePath
"I think the point has not been emphasized enough that this will not and should not, in any way, interfere with the efforts that the mapmaking teams can put forth, and that the goal is simply advocacy and support, in a way that does not shut out anyone." -NewSunshine
"There have been some very valid concerns raised and some of the reactions of those were overly defensive. I do also share most these concerns. The core of the problem is that we are lacking certain personalities within our community. Forming a union won't neccesarily bring them into existence." -lefix
"The council needs to be able to show that the community wants new maps first, and then communicate that want to the mappool-choosers." -Nightmarjoo
Currently, this is just an idea and nothing official...yet.
I don't have anything to add at the moment, but I've had this idea for a while and fully support it. If this can get going then we can really make the most of every opportunity we get for community maps to get somewhere. It can't just work with me though, we need everyone to be on board. Let's do it.
If maps and mapmakers are to ever get the attention they deserve
I'm sorry, but melee mapping already gets far more attention than it deserves. There are currently GM players of which no one knows anything who are far more hardworking and far more talented than melee mappers. Furthermore, there's UMS mappers which is far more daunting and complicated, to create a good UMS game than to create a melee map. There's some extremely impressive UMS games made and no one knows about them.
Seriously, I'm kind of appalled by the self-righteous and entitled attitude of the melee mapping scene. Of basically everything in esports, it's probably the thing that requires the least amount of talent. For the most part you're using doodats and models that the talented artists of Blizzard made. You know what's talent? Making the fantastic portraits for the TSL 3 posters, not making melee maps. You guys even invaded the Arcade to get your vaunted recognition, a space which was meant to bring spotlight to UMS maps, which is again, far more complicated to make, taking away their space for your melee maps. Do melee maps need a 'how to play?', do they need all those pictures and reviews? Maybe they do, but they need it far less than UMS maps.
I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to respect this lust for attention that melee mappers seem to have, especially when they invade the Arcade, a place designed to give UMS mappers some more attention and they do a lot harder work than us melee mappers. I never bothered triggers, even though I'm fluent in C I find galaxy script counter intuitive, my understanding of the data editor is rudimentary. UMS mapping is so much harder than melee mapping.
On October 20 2012 14:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: blah blah and whatnot
Uh, speak for yourself bro. This isn't about some arbitrary hierarchy of talent, effort, or knowhow. This is about making competitive SC2 better. If you don't agree that the game depends on maps, and needs better maps, and that community mapmakers are the best way to achieve it, then you don't have to participate.
I'm not focused on cool UMS games or undiscovered GM players, that's not my bag. They can promote themselves.
I wonder why the map community feels fragmented at times... >_>
I'm sorry you have so much trouble with UMS creation? It's not hard it's just a lot of tedious work in an idiosyncratic environment. Designing a good melee map is hard. Designing an rpg or a TD or a tug-of-war is not hard.
-------
@OP: I don't know if a council is the best way to do it but I don't see any other way it could realistically be done. It would create a perception of artificial elevated status -- everyone as a group would have to actively counteract this and build a culture of inclusion.
I am most attracted by the idea of a monthly highlight publication. If it's done correctly it would be perfect for letting the wider SC2 community have a peak at what we do and see the best maps, and it would also serve as a way to hint at the discussions and issues we have about map design and map visibility etc.
The main purpose and goal of any organizing effort should be to make it easy for tournaments to dabble in new maps. We shouldn't think in terms of "it would be better if things worked like this / ideally this is how things would be"; we should think in terms of "how can we make it as easy and accessible as possible for the various segments of the community to interact with us".
You basically touch on all these things. Good post, I'm curious to see how others feel.
If maps and mapmakers are to ever get the attention they deserve
I'm sorry, but melee mapping already gets far more attention than it deserves. There are currently GM players of which no one knows anything who are far more hardworking and far more talented than melee mappers. Furthermore, there's UMS mappers which is far more daunting and complicated, to create a good UMS game than to create a melee map. There's some extremely impressive UMS games made and no one knows about them.
Seriously, I'm kind of appalled by the self-righteous and entitled attitude of the melee mapping scene. Of basically everything in esports, it's probably the thing that requires the least amount of talent. For the most part you're using doodats and models that the talented artists of Blizzard made. You know what's talent? Making the fantastic portraits for the TSL 3 posters, not making melee maps. You guys even invaded the Arcade to get your vaunted recognition, a space which was meant to bring spotlight to UMS maps, which is again, far more complicated to make, taking away their space for your melee maps. Do melee maps need a 'how to play?', do they need all those pictures and reviews? Maybe they do, but they need it far less than UMS maps.
I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to respect this lust for attention that melee mappers seem to have, especially when they invade the Arcade, a place designed to give UMS mappers some more attention and they do a lot harder work than us melee mappers. I never bothered triggers, even though I'm fluent in C I find galaxy script counter intuitive, my understanding of the data editor is rudimentary. UMS mapping is so much harder than melee mapping.
Uh, speak for yourself bro. This isn't about some arbitrary hierarchy of talent, effort, or knowhow. This is about making competitive SC2 better. If you don't agree that the game depends on maps, and needs better maps, and that community mapmakers are the best way to achieve it, then you don't have to participate.
I'm not focused on cool UMS games or undiscovered GM players, that's not my bag. They can promote themselves.
I wonder why the map community feels fragmented at times... >_>
No, as I quoted, this isn't about helping the SC2 community, this is about giving mapmakers the 'respect they deserve', bartering power. In that sense shifting the balance, if mapmakers would be enabled to make a front, in that sense they could for instance demand royalties to maps, which means that money will have to be drawn from say player prize pool or stream quality.
This is, unpretentiously and clearly an effort to improve the standing and bartering power of melee mappers in the community and it is outlined as such and I don't agree that such a thing is currently necessary.
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.
If maps and mapmakers are to ever get the attention they deserve
I'm sorry, but melee mapping already gets far more attention than it deserves. There are currently GM players of which no one knows anything who are far more hardworking and far more talented than melee mappers. Furthermore, there's UMS mappers which is far more daunting and complicated, to create a good UMS game than to create a melee map. There's some extremely impressive UMS games made and no one knows about them.
Seriously, I'm kind of appalled by the self-righteous and entitled attitude of the melee mapping scene. Of basically everything in esports, it's probably the thing that requires the least amount of talent. For the most part you're using doodats and models that the talented artists of Blizzard made. You know what's talent? Making the fantastic portraits for the TSL 3 posters, not making melee maps. You guys even invaded the Arcade to get your vaunted recognition, a space which was meant to bring spotlight to UMS maps, which is again, far more complicated to make, taking away their space for your melee maps. Do melee maps need a 'how to play?', do they need all those pictures and reviews? Maybe they do, but they need it far less than UMS maps.
I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to respect this lust for attention that melee mappers seem to have, especially when they invade the Arcade, a place designed to give UMS mappers some more attention and they do a lot harder work than us melee mappers. I never bothered triggers, even though I'm fluent in C I find galaxy script counter intuitive, my understanding of the data editor is rudimentary. UMS mapping is so much harder than melee mapping.
Uh, speak for yourself bro. This isn't about some arbitrary hierarchy of talent, effort, or knowhow. This is about making competitive SC2 better. If you don't agree that the game depends on maps, and needs better maps, and that community mapmakers are the best way to achieve it, then you don't have to participate.
I'm not focused on cool UMS games or undiscovered GM players, that's not my bag. They can promote themselves.
I wonder why the map community feels fragmented at times... >_>
No, as I quoted, this isn't about helping the SC2 community, this is about giving mapmakers the 'respect they deserve', bartering power. In that sense shifting the balance, if mapmakers would be enabled to make a front, in that sense they could for instance demand royalties to maps, which means that money will have to be drawn from say player prize pool or stream quality.
This is, unpretentiously and clearly an effort to improve the standing and bartering power of melee mappers in the community and it is outlined as such and I don't agree that such a thing is currently necessary.
???
In 25 months of SC2, there have been two maps made by the TL community that got into ladder and tournaments. That's ridiculous. There should be a constant flux of new and exciting maps. It doesn't have to be a lot it just has to be there, and it's not.
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.
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 are off the deep end sisko. I think you are hung up on the word union?
If you don't have any good alternative ideas or even (apparently) the inclination to promote maps, there's no point in saying things like this
To make it as easy as possible for tournament organizers and those who are interested to easily find maps. This could also help clean up this forum and grow the mapmaking community. However, the union itself will not get maps into the GSL, MLG, or IPL. It will take much more than just making it easy to find maps to get custom melee maps into those tournaments, but it has potential to be greatly beneficial. So when there is only potential pros and virtually no cons I ask, why not?
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 are off the deep end sisko. I think you are hung up on the word union?
No, the post no-where talks about all those things, it clearly talks about improving the standing of melee mappers.
"If maps and mapmakers are to ever get the attention they deserve,"
"his would allow for upcoming mappers to gain attention and possibly be picked up by a team."
It at no point speaks about trying to achieve a fresh and rotating map pool.
If you don't have any good alternative ideas or even (apparently) the inclination to promote maps, there's no point in saying things like this
Nonsensical, if I find a flaw in the programming of the space shuttle without providing a solution I better alert NASA ASAP before they launch it, even though I don't fix the problem, at least the space shuttle doesn't get blown up with people inside.
Likewise, if I find a flaw in the reasoning of this concept and can conceive people that it will not achieve what is set to achieve I better do so before people expend effort trying to do it which will be in vain, even though I do not know how it can be achieved per se.
As I said, the only tournaments which currently have the liberty to introduce new maps without displeasing players are tournaments which are long and enjoy a high level or prestige. GSL and OSL, perhaps also the NASL. If MLG introduces new maps for a weekend tournament or Dreamhack does, players will just complain about having to play on maps they don't know which will most likely fade into obscurity after the tournament. BW map pools continually stayed fresh because the two BW tournaments were exactly that, long, prestigious tournaments.
You have spent more words criticizing a phantom then there are in the OP.
This has all been discussed a lot before. I suppose in your ignorance you should not be faulted for jumping to wrong (and very strange) conclusions. Timetwister's proposal is only positive. If you can't admit that lashing out at it is inappropriate and counterproductive, then there's nothing more I can say.
Sisko, I don't need to specifically say all the desires the melee mapmaking community has to illustrate them. The only reason we would want tournament organizers to see our maps is to refresh the map pools and use our maps. That should be assumed, and go without saying. This is about the mappers as well, but mostly about the maps.
On October 20 2012 16:32 Timetwister22 wrote: Sisko, I don't need to specifically say all the desires the melee mapmaking community has to illustrate them. The only reason we would want tournament organizers to see our maps is to refresh the map pools and use our maps. That should be assumed, and go without saying. This is about the mappers as well, but mostly about the maps.
The post was extremely explicit about improving the standing of mappers and giving them more respect and recognition. If you claim that improving map pools is the true purpose while it's only apparently implicit and not listed any-where in the purpose section as well as indeed explicitly listing a lot of other purposes of this initiative, that's pretty awkward. Might as well just add it.
The fact that call it a "union" and in its purposes solely talk about achieving benefits for mapmakers, will make any bystander reading it think that it is in fact exactly that, seeking better treatment for mapmakers.
Edit: However, if this is not what you seek and instead seek to be liaison, then presenting yourself as a union to other parties might be diplomatically inadvisable. If you present yourself as a union from the start they might assume assume that you intend to make certain demands from them or seek to obtain a certain treatment and in fact might be far more hesitant to even consider you than when you style yourself as a liaison.
Nice writeup Timetwister, thx! I was talking about this for some time now but was always too lazy to put some actual work into starting this hehe Nothing I want to add atm I think.
@SiskosGoatee Ultimately our goal is to have good maps, good map pools and a constant map rotation, and we believe that if we combine in one organization we will be able to achieve this much easier. Also if we can speak with one voice, we may have a chance to be heard in this community (which atm isn't the case I feel).
This is NOT about making money or getting fame. We just want this to be the best possible SC2. Nobody would start/continue mapmaking for money, it's pretty unrealistic to expect a single cent for making maps at this point. Altho it wouldn't be wrong if people earned money for providing content and improving the game.
How about a map testing group, that would actually help improve things. A union of makers would just be there to bully others into using their maps. Instead of making their maps better it degrades to calling others maps worse.
On October 20 2012 17:52 Ragoo wrote: @SiskosGoatee Ultimately our goal is to have good maps, good map pools and a constant map rotation, and we believe that if we combine in one organization we will be able to achieve this much easier. Also if we can speak with one voice, we may have a chance to be heard in this community (which atm isn't the case I feel).
This is NOT about making money or getting fame. We just want this to be the best possible SC2. Nobody would start/continue mapmaking for money, it's pretty unrealistic to expect a single cent for making maps at this point. Altho it wouldn't be wrong if people earned money for providing content and improving the game.
I hear that, but calling yourself a 'union' then is in my opinion a big mistake. A union of labourers in a harbour is not to improve the quality of the ships made, they are, without pretence, out to improve the wages and working condition of the labourers, that's what a union does. Together with that the purpose does not talk about map pool improvement as much as better rights, exposure and recognition for map makers...
I don't think that if Sundance reads this manifesto he'd think quite the same thing as you people think.
On October 20 2012 17:55 Carnate wrote: How about a map testing group, that would actually help improve things. A union of makers would just be there to bully others into using their maps. Instead of making their maps better it degrades to calling others maps worse.
It doesn't have to. If you create visibility in the community, that is the best way to open up map testing that we have been seeking forever. The new custom games UI in HotS should help facilitate this too. If that works as planned, map popularity and ratings from testing will propel merit based map selection.
On October 20 2012 17:52 Ragoo wrote: @SiskosGoatee Ultimately our goal is to have good maps, good map pools and a constant map rotation, and we believe that if we combine in one organization we will be able to achieve this much easier. Also if we can speak with one voice, we may have a chance to be heard in this community (which atm isn't the case I feel).
This is NOT about making money or getting fame. We just want this to be the best possible SC2. Nobody would start/continue mapmaking for money, it's pretty unrealistic to expect a single cent for making maps at this point. Altho it wouldn't be wrong if people earned money for providing content and improving the game.
I hear that, but calling yourself a 'union' then is in my opinion a big mistake. A union of labourers in a harbour is not to improve the quality of the ships made, they are, without pretence, out to improve the wages and working condition of the labourers, that's what a union does. Together with that the purpose does not talk about map pool improvement as much as better rights, exposure and recognition for map makers...
I don't think that if Sundance reads this manifesto he'd think quite the same thing as you people think.
Siskos, you are seriously trolling the thread now. Just leave it be. And I don't mean post another argument, I mean just walk away! This thread and you do not get along.
This is something that quite a few of us have been talking about for a while. I will tentatively put my name forward for the role of graphic designer, I don't know how much will be involved exactly but I'm happy to do what I can. The website could potentially be merged with the website me and lefix have been working on, jump on skype and I'll send you a link.
I think the starcraft 2 community needs some form of mapmaking enity you speak about. Ideally they would list 5-7 recommended balanced maps that tournament organizers should use in their tournaments. This recommended map pool would obviously have to be adjusted every month or so, to bring in 1-2 new fresh maps and to account for changes in the metagame.
Ideally this union would have some ties to tournaments so that they gain some form of authority. Should this concept succeed and tournament organizer really manage to share one common map pool, and switch to newly introduced maps together, this recommended map pool I'm speaking of might even make its way to become the ladder map pool, should blizzard sees some success in the union. However if such power is obtained it would be necessary to have people in the committee who actually understand maps and the game, meaning top level map makers but also players should be a part of it.
On October 20 2012 17:52 Ragoo wrote: @SiskosGoatee Ultimately our goal is to have good maps, good map pools and a constant map rotation, and we believe that if we combine in one organization we will be able to achieve this much easier. Also if we can speak with one voice, we may have a chance to be heard in this community (which atm isn't the case I feel).
This is NOT about making money or getting fame. We just want this to be the best possible SC2. Nobody would start/continue mapmaking for money, it's pretty unrealistic to expect a single cent for making maps at this point. Altho it wouldn't be wrong if people earned money for providing content and improving the game.
I hear that, but calling yourself a 'union' then is in my opinion a big mistake. A union of labourers in a harbour is not to improve the quality of the ships made, they are, without pretence, out to improve the wages and working condition of the labourers, that's what a union does. Together with that the purpose does not talk about map pool improvement as much as better rights, exposure and recognition for map makers...
I don't think that if Sundance reads this manifesto he'd think quite the same thing as you people think.
Well, I was aware of this and it's intentions before it's post (so I only skimmed it), so as I read SiskosGoatee I was like wtf >.<
But he's right, without previous understanding the opener in the OP comes off quite like he's saying.
Luckily this isn't really the official announcement of the union/organization - it's just the discussion of it where we can fix presentation errors such as this.
btw I nominate EatThePath and monitor for council members :>
p.s. I like this idea more than a strict forum purge... I'm going to close more threads but not quite as many as I would have before this organization.
If maps and mapmakers are to ever get the attention they deserve
I'm sorry, but melee mapping already gets far more attention than it deserves. There are currently GM players of which no one knows anything who are far more hardworking and far more talented than melee mappers. Furthermore, there's UMS mappers which is far more daunting and complicated, to create a good UMS game than to create a melee map. There's some extremely impressive UMS games made and no one knows about them.
Seriously, I'm kind of appalled by the self-righteous and entitled attitude of the melee mapping scene. Of basically everything in esports, it's probably the thing that requires the least amount of talent. For the most part you're using doodats and models that the talented artists of Blizzard made. You know what's talent? Making the fantastic portraits for the TSL 3 posters, not making melee maps. You guys even invaded the Arcade to get your vaunted recognition, a space which was meant to bring spotlight to UMS maps, which is again, far more complicated to make, taking away their space for your melee maps. Do melee maps need a 'how to play?', do they need all those pictures and reviews? Maybe they do, but they need it far less than UMS maps.
I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to respect this lust for attention that melee mappers seem to have, especially when they invade the Arcade, a place designed to give UMS mappers some more attention and they do a lot harder work than us melee mappers. I never bothered triggers, even though I'm fluent in C I find galaxy script counter intuitive, my understanding of the data editor is rudimentary. UMS mapping is so much harder than melee mapping.
Uh, speak for yourself bro. This isn't about some arbitrary hierarchy of talent, effort, or knowhow. This is about making competitive SC2 better. If you don't agree that the game depends on maps, and needs better maps, and that community mapmakers are the best way to achieve it, then you don't have to participate.
I'm not focused on cool UMS games or undiscovered GM players, that's not my bag. They can promote themselves.
I wonder why the map community feels fragmented at times... >_>
No, as I quoted, this isn't about helping the SC2 community, this is about giving mapmakers the 'respect they deserve', bartering power. In that sense shifting the balance, if mapmakers would be enabled to make a front, in that sense they could for instance demand royalties to maps, which means that money will have to be drawn from say player prize pool or stream quality.
This is, unpretentiously and clearly an effort to improve the standing and bartering power of melee mappers in the community and it is outlined as such and I don't agree that such a thing is currently necessary.
There is no set amount of money in the community. Encouraging maps with new and interesting ideas will grow Starcraft 2 not slowly sap the life blood from it. Think about what makes a spectator sport bad, When something is not satisfactory or dull. New and different maps will be refreshing and help balance the game.
On October 20 2012 19:51 ulfryc wrote: Stop feeding the troll guys.
I think the starcraft 2 community needs some form of mapmaking enity you speak about. Ideally they would list 5-7 recommended balanced maps that tournament organizers should use in their tournaments. This recommended map pool would obviously have to be adjusted every month or so, to bring in 1-2 new fresh maps and to account for changes in the metagame.
Ideally this union would have some ties to tournaments so that they gain some form of authority. Should this concept succeed and tournament organizer really manage to share one common map pool, and switch to newly introduced maps together, this recommended map pool I'm speaking of might even make its way to become the ladder map pool, should blizzard sees some success in the union. However if such power is obtained it would be necessary to have people in the committee who actually understand maps and the game, meaning top level map makers but also players should be a part of it.
The idea so far is that the monthly highlight would consist of one large post with every map made over the last month on it, and then the council, whoever they end up being, would select an appropriate number of "featured" maps, so as for putting more attention onto the best maps being made we theoretically have that covered.
As for getting the attention of tournament organizers, that all depends on how successful this is. IPL has been the only one to look for new maps, really, so potentially they could see this, and it can start catching on from there, but the most important thing is to stick with it, and remain consistent in the quality of the entity, so that luck isn't as much a factor.
On October 20 2012 19:51 ulfryc wrote: Stop feeding the troll guys.
I think the starcraft 2 community needs some form of mapmaking enity you speak about. Ideally they would list 5-7 recommended balanced maps that tournament organizers should use in their tournaments. This recommended map pool would obviously have to be adjusted every month or so, to bring in 1-2 new fresh maps and to account for changes in the metagame.
Ideally this union would have some ties to tournaments so that they gain some form of authority. Should this concept succeed and tournament organizer really manage to share one common map pool, and switch to newly introduced maps together, this recommended map pool I'm speaking of might even make its way to become the ladder map pool, should blizzard sees some success in the union. However if such power is obtained it would be necessary to have people in the committee who actually understand maps and the game, meaning top level map makers but also players should be a part of it.
The idea so far is that the monthly highlight would consist of one large post with every map made over the last month on it, and then the council, whoever they end up being, would select an appropriate number of "featured" maps, so as for putting more attention onto the best maps being made we theoretically have that covered.
As for getting the attention of tournament organizers, that all depends on how successful this is. IPL has been the only one to look for new maps, really, so potentially they could see this, and it can start catching on from there, but the most important thing is to stick with it, and remain consistent in the quality of the entity, so that luck isn't as much a factor.
Actually, now that I think about it, I really like the idea of a "recommended maps" list. This wouldn't be a monthly highlight, this would be a slowly changing palette of maps that we advise would be good to adopt for tournament play and/or ladder.
This way outsiders aren't bombarded with new maps all the time. This would be a stable, high visibility steady pressure sort of instrument. Casuals and pros alike could dabble in playing on some of them. Maybe a small tournament here and there would adopt one or two. Slowly the maps would build exposure and players would get used to playing on them, and this would make it increasingly appealing for them to be adopted. The list would only swap maps in and out if they seriously deserved it, and this would only happen every once in a while.
Of course this doesn't have to completely replace a monthly highlight. There could still be a perfectly worthwhile "this month's notable maps" type thing, which could showcase both 1) really good solid new maps and 2) maps that have interesting new ideas that are well executed.
The recommended maps list wouldn't be "hey this might be cool to throw in your tournament, try it out". It would be "no seriously, use this map, it is esports material".
[edit] About the name union, I actually really like it. Union means a united group. The collective bargaining thing is just one connotation. I think it'd be clear it's just a moniker. Think of "student union", "union pacific railroad". Union has kind of a nice old-fashioned ring to it, instead of just "association" or "organization". ^_^
On October 20 2012 19:51 ulfryc wrote: Stop feeding the troll guys.
I think the starcraft 2 community needs some form of mapmaking enity you speak about. Ideally they would list 5-7 recommended balanced maps that tournament organizers should use in their tournaments. This recommended map pool would obviously have to be adjusted every month or so, to bring in 1-2 new fresh maps and to account for changes in the metagame.
Ideally this union would have some ties to tournaments so that they gain some form of authority. Should this concept succeed and tournament organizer really manage to share one common map pool, and switch to newly introduced maps together, this recommended map pool I'm speaking of might even make its way to become the ladder map pool, should blizzard sees some success in the union. However if such power is obtained it would be necessary to have people in the committee who actually understand maps and the game, meaning top level map makers but also players should be a part of it.
The idea so far is that the monthly highlight would consist of one large post with every map made over the last month on it, and then the council, whoever they end up being, would select an appropriate number of "featured" maps, so as for putting more attention onto the best maps being made we theoretically have that covered.
As for getting the attention of tournament organizers, that all depends on how successful this is. IPL has been the only one to look for new maps, really, so potentially they could see this, and it can start catching on from there, but the most important thing is to stick with it, and remain consistent in the quality of the entity, so that luck isn't as much a factor.
Actually, now that I think about it, I really like the idea of a "recommended maps" list. This wouldn't be a monthly highlight, this would be a slowly changing palette of maps that we advise would be good to adopt for tournament play and/or ladder.
This way outsiders aren't bombarded with new maps all the time. This would be a stable, high visibility steady pressure sort of instrument. Casuals and pros alike could dabble in playing on some of them. Maybe a small tournament here and there would adopt one or two. Slowly the maps would build exposure and players would get used to playing on them, and this would make it increasingly appealing for them to be adopted. The list would only swap maps in and out if they seriously deserved it, and this would only happen every once in a while.
Of course this doesn't have to completely replace a monthly highlight. There could still be a perfectly worthwhile "this month's notable maps" type thing, which could showcase both 1) really good solid new maps and 2) maps that have interesting new ideas that are well executed.
The recommended maps list wouldn't be "hey this might be cool to throw in your tournament, try it out". It would be "no seriously, use this map, it is esports material".
Exactly what I tried to say. Except much better articulated :D.
I have a number of issues with a proposed overarching body for us melee mapmakers. I'll do my best to organize my thoughts as concisely as possible.
To begin, the entire point of forming a central body is to accomplish desired goals that otherwise couldn't be reached without it. The question, then, is whether the formation of this body actually achieves these goals, and more importantly, whether this central body truly is even necessary in the first place. Let's boil it down a little bit. As I understand it, the main reason this concept has come up over and over again in the TL mapmaker chat is because: melee mapmakers want better representation when it comes to Blizzard and tournaments choosing maps for the ladder and tournament pools.
Getting Recognized
How, exactly, will this organization better represent melee mapmakers? As it currently stands, the people in charge (Blizzard, tournament organizers, etc.) don't listen to melee mapmakers very much, if at all. That's an important note to make, and I'll be coming back to it in a minute. With that said, how does putting a bunch of us onto an arbitrary "council" convince these people to start paying attention?
Frankly, it seems more like it just creates an inflated sense of self-importance rather than getting anything done. To put it into an analogy, just because I see some kids playing politics with one another at the local park won't cause me to suddenly consider voting one of them into office; I'd think it's cute and keep walking.
Back to people in charge not listening to melee mapmakers. How much effort has been put forth by mapmakers when it comes to actually getting in contact with tournament organizers, providing a convincing pitch on why their maps could/should be used, and following through? That's an open-ended question, and I leave each mapmaker to provide their own answer to that. I'm sure for a select few it'll be "quite a bit", while for others it may be "oh, I never really tried; I only posted my maps on TL and/or Reddit and hoped they'd get picked up".
Team Crux continues to get its maps introduced into the GSL, ESV has some of its maps in the regular tournament and ladder pools, and I know TPW had a short stint with the NASL, with its maps included in the Season 3 Qualifiers. With that, let's take a closer look at mapmaking teams and their role.
The Purpose of Mapmaking Teams
Let's first take a look at what a mapmaking team is: it's a group of mapmakers that have come together under a common banner for the sake of legitimizing and promoting their work. It also provides an opportunity to give these mapmakers more perceived authority when in discussions with Blizzard/tournament organizers (org to org, rather than random guy to org).
Is this sounding familiar to the OP? It should be. The role that this overarching body is trying to fill is one that, really, has already been addressed in many ways.
Handling Map of the Month? I present the ESV Korean Weekly. Providing organizational clout? I present any mapmaking team that has made serious efforts to communicate with tournament organizers. Recaps of recently released work, listing upcoming events and announcements? I present any mapmaking team site that has been properly maintained.
Truth be told, all of these needs are already addressed if mapmaking teams manage them properly. That's the key, though, isn't it? Managing them properly.
The Current Situation
Let's take a look at some of the top/most known mapmaking teams and how they're handling things. Before we get into that, though, let's quickly list some key goals that a mapmaking team might want to accomplish.
1. Provide a central hub for tournaments to see their latest published maps 2. Have an official medium and/or media from which to provide announcements, updates, PR releases, etc. 3. Ensure there is a clear way with which they can be contacted, and show who the major contacts are. 4. By god, make sure that all of the above is presented in a professional manner.
Let's just keep it to that for now, since those are core elements that any serious organization should have. How do the current mapmaking teams stack up? The teams I'll be looking at are: ESV, TPW, and the newly-created Dream Forge.
Let's start with the premier Western mapmaking team, ESV:
1. Currently no known central hub to see the latest ESV maps. Their website, esvisiontv.com quickly redirects to their TwitchTV profile. 2. No official site (see above), but do have a Twitter and Facebook profile. Facebook has received no updates since August (not currently maintained). Twitter is regularly maintained. 3. No clear way for businesses to get in contact. Sorry, but expecting companies to post on your FB wall or tweet at you is not a valid business contact. There's a reason why individuals might tweet something like "what's the best way to get in touch?" to another individual -- tweeting business between orgs is not good practice. 4. Not sure about you, but http://www.twitch.tv/esvision doesn't feel like putting your best foot forward.
For the most popular Western mapmaking team, they sure do a terribly poor job marketing their mapmaking. At least they do well in pushing the Korean Weekly, which makes sense seeing as that's their revenue source.
Next up, The Planetary Workshop:
1. A central hub for latest maps is provided at http://theplanetaryworkshop.com but has not been maintained. 2. Same as above; not maintained. 3. No clear way to get in contact. An email in tiny text is provided at the very, very bottom of the site. Basically the best way to say "We don't actually want you to see this". Having worked for multiple web marketing companies, the industry standard is to have major contact info (email, phone) at the top right corner of the site (where social media currently is), as well as a very clear "contact" link in the main navigation. 4. Presented in a reasonable manner.
Surprisingly, TPW has the model so close, but ends up crumbling due to negligence. The site hasn't been updated at all since January. The maps are greatly outdated. Even though the site is set up well (sans contact info), everything is outdated to the point of uselessness. It also gives the impression of a dead/abandoned team. Given this, why should tournaments consider TPW?
Finally, Dream Forge:
1. No obvious hub for latest maps. 2. Announcements available at http://dreamforge.forumotion.com; no known Twitter/Facebook. 3. No clear business contact. 4. Using a free forumotion account, do I really need to say more?
I have no idea how these guys ever want to be taken seriously with their current setup. This is not the look of people that mean serious business. Not even so much as owning their own domain -- an incredibly simplistic feat to achieve.
None of these teams have a properly maintained website or obvious business contacts, and we're wondering why it doesn't feel like mapmakers are getting a fair shake in representation? This isn't a high school pet project we're talking about here, it's a growing media and entertainment industry. We're talking about legitimate, licensed companies selling products. If you're not willing or prepared to don a suit and sit at a business table for discussion with a strong business portfolio/website to back you up, why on earth would you expect these people to listen to you?
Even with the recent announcement about Mr. Bitter and CatZ forming a "team" to discuss things with Blizzard (later clarified by Bitter to just be a list of opinions, not an actual team), very few mapmakers were even willing to consider trying to become a representative. Barrin stepped up to the plate so long as he had transportation paid for, I mused about considering it, and I believe one other (sorry, can't remember who!) threw a light-hearted maybe out there.
But What Does It All Mean?
Quite frankly, I think the issues mapmakers have with representation boil down to the efforts of the mapmakers themselves. Very little professional effort has been put into actually attempting to earn a voice in a growing entertainment industry. I qualify that statement with the term "professional". As someone who has worked in multiple online marketing companies and is the co-founder of his own start-up, I can easily tell you all that appearances matter.
Creating another level of pseudo-bureaucracy isn't the right way to go about fixing the current issues we have as melee mapmakers. The focus should be on fixing and improving upon what's already there.
Additional Pitfalls
Let's assume for a minute a future where this mapmaker union idea goes forward anyway. Here are some additional concerns I have with its viability:
It could actually hurt growth in the mapmaking scene.
As I noted earlier, this idea overlaps heavily with what mapmaking teams can/should be doing. In essence, it's an idea that combines everything into a single entity. This is a monolithic approach that is highly prone to creating an "old boy's club", so to speak. You're either in good terms with the big boys, or you're not. To get a good idea of this situation, assume that only one mapmaking team (e.g. ESV) would exist. In such a scenario, it becomes very hard for up-and-comers to get any recognition even within the mapmaking scene, let alone getting your maps into tournaments. It might help get certain community maps into the tournament/ladder pools more often, but at the expense of the individual -- unless you're already in the old boy's club, of course. This brings me to my second concern.
Individuals and teams working around/outside the union.
Ignoring the daunting task of getting everyone on board in the first place (more on that in a minute), if we assume the situation above then it wouldn't be long before people (particularly new blood) start to ask, "Why is this small 'council' in charge of what I can or cannot do?" Suddenly you get individuals circumventing the union in favour of representing themselves, or small groups of these individuals forming their own "unions". Suddenly we're back to square one, where this union is just another mapmaking team, except instead of calling them teams, we call them unions (or whatever this organizational body might be named).
The entire point of unions, or federations, or associations, whatever you want to call them, is to bring teams together under certain policies in order to prevent shady business practice, and to be the governing body of these policies so that they're enforced. This includes things like how player transfers work and any other team-to-team business dealings. Right now the melee mapmaking scene isn't even at a point where teams are functioning well internally, let alone any interaction between mapmaking teams beyond simply chatting with one another in a skype chat and providing map feedback. The goals and purpose of an overarching body do not match with the goals set out in the OP -- it's at the wrong organizational level.
Getting the thing to work in the first place.
The only way for an overarching body to even be established is for most, if not all, of affected parties sign onto it. How would you convince the more successful mapmaking teams to get on board with this idea? Alternatively, if this launches with just, say, TPW and Dream Forge, how could you truly call it a representational body for the mapmaking scene? Aside from TPW's brief stint in the NASL, there have been no contributions of note from these teams in the professional e-sports industry. Also to consider are individual mapmakers such as myself -- how do you convince me to be represented by this?
It's a question that would need to be answered before something like this could ever get off the ground in the first place, and given the points I've already made, I believe it's a question that does not need to be answered at this time, as I do not believe this kind of union is necessary right now. There are plenty of other things that could be worked on first to legitimize the melee mapmaking scene.
^ you act like the lack of support for maps is mapmakers' fault.
Maps is not an agenda we are trying to push. It is a pillar of good SC2. We just make maps. The fact that we try to take measures to promote maps is because we care about the game, not getting our slice of the esports pie. (I am speaking for myself of course; I hope most people agree.) It shouldn't be our job to create a map pipeline from scratch after the community and Blizzard have done nothing for 2 years. If we do a shitty job of it, no fucking wonder, it is not our main purpose in life.
If you have a plan, please share it. Don't just poke hypothetical holes. Believe me, I am glad to see criticism. I hate blind optimism. But you could be far more constructive. Which makes me question what your actual aim is in bothering to post.
Anyone would be free to operate outside the union. That has been the de facto position since the inception of mapping. Diamond has been able to get some ESV maps into things from time to time. While there was a bit more general awareness about mapping while new leagues were fresh, TPW also got some attention. Meanwhile motm has been in and out of operation doing its thing, mostly with participation to varying degrees from some map orgs. But it is mostly individual effort on the part of people who happen to also be in orgs. And week in, week out, newbies get help with their shitty maps and the more developed mappers occasionally make some interesting headway in more advanced mapping ideas.
But the only important and lasting map implementation progress has come from the TL map contest. The union idea is essentially just trying to integrate the mapping scene more into the TL community. I don't know what there is to QQ about that that we haven't already been through unsuccessfully.
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. Who else should perform this function if not the veteran TL mappers? If anything ever comes of it, it could be a liaison for tournament organizers, as per timetwister's vision. I don't see what anyone has to complain about.
I suppose this highlights the benefit (though not dependency) for some cooperation from TL. So thanks, I guess.
One more thing. Your rundown of proper PR is great. Seriously. ^^ But compare it to what we get from the other segments of the community. You could as easily decry the same shortcomings about a lot other things that have websites and try to have a voice but do an inadequate job. I don't think the expectation is for a professional front. Most news around here comes in the form of a forum post. The way to get things done is to have personal connections.
On October 21 2012 07:12 EatThePath wrote: ^ you act like the lack of support for maps is mapmakers' fault.
In many ways, yes. Mapmakers have done very little to legitimize themselves in the eyes of relevant businesses.
On October 21 2012 07:12 EatThePath wrote: Maps is not an agenda we are trying to push. It is a pillar of good SC2. We just make maps. The fact that we try to take measures to promote maps is because we care about the game, not getting our slice of the esports pie. (I am speaking for myself of course; I hope most people agree.) It shouldn't be our job to create a map pipeline from scratch after the community and Blizzard have done nothing for 2 years. If we do a shitty job of it, no fucking wonder, it is not our main purpose in life.
Name one point in my post where I talk about money. Never do I speak of getting "a slice of the pie". That's what Blizzard and tournament organizations are doing. They're in the business of making money, and you need to accept that. The whole e-sports concept is, as I said, a media and entertainment industry. This is a fact. If you want to contribute to that, then you need to treat it like business, whether you're personally in it for profit or not.
On October 21 2012 07:12 EatThePath wrote: If you have a plan, please share it. Don't just poke hypothetical holes. Believe me, I am glad to see criticism. I hate blind optimism. But you could be far more constructive. Which makes me question what your actual aim is in bothering to post.
Read my post in more detail. There is plenty said about the direction that should be taken.
On October 21 2012 07:12 EatThePath wrote: Anyone would be free to operate outside the union. That has been the de facto position since the inception of mapping. Diamond has been able to get some ESV maps into things from time to time. While there was a bit more general awareness about mapping while new leagues were fresh, TPW also got some attention.
You're regurgitating things I've already said in my post. Are you sure you read it in full?
On October 21 2012 07:12 EatThePath wrote: But the only important and lasting map progress has come from the TL map contest. The union idea is essentially just trying to integrate the mapping scene more into the TL community. I don't know what there is to QQ about that that we haven't already been through unsuccessfully.
Have you ever considered that perhaps the reason the TL map contest has been successful is because Team Liquid is run as a business? It's the premier StarCraft community site, runs its own premier tournament in the TSL, and even has its own professional StarCraft II team (run separately, but still under the same name and highly integrated). If anything, your point here affirms what I've said in my post.
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.
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.
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.
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?
iamcaustic, there are several things I see wrong with your post that you might have just missed. There are a bunch, so stick with me.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: With that said, how does putting a bunch of us onto an arbitrary "council" convince these people to start paying attention?
The reason why we aren't taken seriously by those in charge is because we are unknown. No one really knows our names, and tournament organizers do not pay attention to our maps. For example, Frigid Pass did not make Dreamhack by the organizers stumbling upon it in the forum. In fact, Frigid Pass sat in the forum for a long while before it even came to the attention of the organizers. It was Diamond who went up to them and got it in, not the forum. Thankfully, ESV has Diamond to do this, but the rest of the community does not. That's were the union council and organizers come in.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: Let's first take a look at what a mapmaking team is: it's a group of mapmakers that have come together under a common banner for the sake of legitimizing and promoting their work
Where this is true, it's not entirely true. Yes, teams are mappers who come together to promote their work. However, this just fragments the community and leads to some problems. For example, ESV maps are way more well known and have a better shot at getting into tournaments than other teams, even if other teams have just as good, if not better, maps.
Additionally, mapmaking teams are mainly for feedback and idea sharing among knowledgeable mapmakers. This would still exist, and overlap in no way with the union.
Furthermore, this organizes all the teams in a unified effort in promoting melee maps. As I mentioned in the OP, it's much like tournament leagues, such as GSL, gathering all the pro teams and players under a single league to promote Starcraft 2. If there were no tournament leagues, and pro teams just held tournaments between themselves, Starcraft 2 probably wouldn't be as big as it is today.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote:
Let's start with the premier Western mapmaking team, ESV:
1. Currently no known central hub to see the latest ESV maps. Their website, esvisiontv.com quickly redirects to their TwitchTV profile. 2. No official site (see above), but do have a Twitter and Facebook profile. Facebook has received no updates since August (not currently maintained). Twitter is regularly maintained. 3. No clear way for businesses to get in contact. Sorry, but expecting companies to post on your FB wall or tweet at you is not a valid business contact. There's a reason why individuals might tweet something like "what's the best way to get in touch?" to another individual -- tweeting business between orgs is not good practice. 4. Not sure about you, but http://www.twitch.tv/esvision doesn't feel like putting your best foot forward.
In defense of my team, I feel obligated to correct you on quite a few things. 1. We do have a ESV Mapmaking Team post, but in fairness it's probably super outdated. 2. Where it is true we currently don't have a central website, it's in the works. Diamond has some big plans for it. 3. Diamond probably has connections to every single tournament organizer and community leader you could think of. If you are not already in contact with him, a PM over TL should be the most obvious method of making initial contact. 4. As far as mapmaking, no. But in fairness ESV.TV attracts thousands of viewers for both SC2 and LoL. That's a pretty large accomplishment.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: Quite frankly, I think the issues mapmakers have with representation boil down to the efforts of the mapmakers themselves. Very little professional effort has been put into actually attempting to earn a voice in a growing entertainment industry. I qualify that statement with the term "professional".
Diamond has spent countless hours and thousands of dollars to get ESV to where it is now, and with success. However, the rest of the mapmaking community hasn't seen any benefits from this. Why? Diamond only represents ESV. The community is fragmented, and that's the problem. If you're a tournament organizer with a busy schedule, do you have time to listen to three different individuals representing individual mapmaking teams and to individually review each map the team is offering? No. That's where the union comes it. It is one voice that goes to tournament organizers with a list of the best maps between all the teams, thus making it easier on tournament organizers.
Does that mean team's self promotion no longer plays a role? No. Teams will have every right to promote their own maps individually. ESV does this with the Korean Weekly. Tournament organizers might see an ESV map there, and then contact Diamond with an interest in using it. There is nothing wrong with this, and by all means this does not overlap with the union.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: The only way for an overarching body to even be established is for most, if not all, of affected parties sign onto it.
The only bodies that would be needed to get this started are the few needed to fill the council and organizer position, with maybe a writer and graphic designer. Mapmaking teams wouldn't have to change or to sign onto anything. The councils is a group of people that makes a monthly recap thread, as well as the other listed bonuses, to promote all the maps posted that month. That has nothing to do with teams. The union organizer(s) would just be those going up to tournament organizers attempting to get maps from all teams into tournaments. This doesn't require effort on the team's part. If anything, this just helps teams with promoting their maps for them.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: Also to consider are individual mapmakers such as myself -- how do you convince me to be represented by this?
If you don't want your maps promoted in the monthly recap, let the council know. Aside that, you are not affected in any way by the union. You are not signing a membership, swearing to some oath, or anything crazy like that. You just make maps, and the union promotes them.
However, I do share a concern that I've heard among many, which is "Who will be on the council? Who is this organizer(s) that's going to promote our maps to tournaments? Can I trust them to promote my team's maps as good, if not better, than my team currently does?". That is what this discussion is for. Essentially, we can make a council now and start the month recaps right now. However, for the organizer(s) idea to be effective, we will first need to start making contact with tournament organizers. Becoming known among the entire sc2 community with be priority in order for this to be successful.
EDIT: I did forget to comment about this:
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: The entire point of unions, or federations, or associations, whatever you want to call them, is to bring teams together under certain policies in order to prevent shady business practice, and to be the governing body of these policies so that they're enforced.
I will entirely agree with you. However, our community is so small this doesn't really apply. If our mapmaking community starts to grow and become hundreds of mappers, then the union will have to adapt and probably become a sort of governing party. However, this isn't anything we should worry about at the moment.
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.
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.
-----------------------------
On October 21 2012 07:57 Timetwister22 wrote: iamcaustic, there are several things I see wrong with your post that you might have just missed. There are a bunch, so stick with me.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: With that said, how does putting a bunch of us onto an arbitrary "council" convince these people to start paying attention?
The reason why we aren't taken seriously by those in charge is because we are unknown. No one really knows our names, and tournament organizers do not pay attention to our maps. For example, Frigid Pass did not make Dreamhack by the organizers stumbling upon it in the forum. In fact, Frigid Pass sat in the forum for a long while before it even came to the attention of the organizers. It was Diamond who went up to them and got it in, not the forum. Thankfully, ESV has Diamond to do this, but the rest of the community does not. That's were the union council and organizers come in.
You're not incorrect here, but like you note it's because ESV does a better job on the business side of things than other teams. This is an issue of teams failing to do what they need to be taken seriously.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: Let's first take a look at what a mapmaking team is: it's a group of mapmakers that have come together under a common banner for the sake of legitimizing and promoting their work
Where this is true, it's not entirely true. Yes, teams are mappers who come together to promote their work. However, this just fragments the community and leads to some problems. For example, ESV maps are way more well known and have a better shot at getting into tournaments than other teams, even if other teams have just as good, if not better, maps.
Additionally, mapmaking teams are mainly for feedback and idea sharing among knowledgeable mapmakers. This would still exist, and overlap in no way with the union.
Furthermore, this organizes all the teams in a unified effort in promoting melee maps. As I mentioned in the OP, it's much like tournament leagues, such as GSL, gathering all the pro teams and players under a single league to promote Starcraft 2. If there were no tournament leagues, and pro teams just held tournaments between themselves, Starcraft 2 probably wouldn't be as big as it is today.
ESV maps are far more well known because of the work people like Diamond have put in. Like already noted, there's a business and marketing side to these things, because e-sports is a business. This is an issue of teams failing to do what they need to be taken seriously. ESV comes out on top because they've done the most, even if there are areas they could greatly improve upon (as I note in my original response).
Let's start with the premier Western mapmaking team, ESV:
1. Currently no known central hub to see the latest ESV maps. Their website, esvisiontv.com quickly redirects to their TwitchTV profile. 2. No official site (see above), but do have a Twitter and Facebook profile. Facebook has received no updates since August (not currently maintained). Twitter is regularly maintained. 3. No clear way for businesses to get in contact. Sorry, but expecting companies to post on your FB wall or tweet at you is not a valid business contact. There's a reason why individuals might tweet something like "what's the best way to get in touch?" to another individual -- tweeting business between orgs is not good practice. 4. Not sure about you, but http://www.twitch.tv/esvision doesn't feel like putting your best foot forward.
In defense of my team, I feel obligated to correct you on quite a few things. 1. We do have a ESV Mapmaking Team post, but in fairness it's probably super outdated. 2. Where it is true we currently don't have a central website, it's in the works. Diamond has some big plans for it. 3. Diamond probably has connections to every single tournament organizer and community leader you could think of. If you are not already in contact with him, a PM over TL should be the most obvious method of making initial contact. 4. As far as mapmaking, no. But in fairness ESV.TV attracts thousands of viewers for both SC2 and LoL. That's a pretty large accomplishment.
1. A post on Team Liquid doesn't exactly scream "professional organization" to me. You also note that it is outdated. Why is there no official site for ESV? Appearance matters in business. 2. That's fantastic to hear. A step in the right direction. 3. I don't disagree here. We've also gone over how ESV has managed to get its maps into tournament and ladder pools. However, that still doesn't excuse the lack of obvious contact information. Remember, I'm talking business to business (B2B) relations. Do you expect Blizzard to toss Diamond a TL private message to get in touch with him, for example? (I wouldn't be surprised if he already made the effort for Blizzard to get his actual contact info, but I'm making a point) 4. Again, this shows how putting real effort into a mapmaking team can produce results. I'm merely making the case that teams, including ESV, can do a better job of it, and that if they do, then the ideas of the OP become unnecessary.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: Quite frankly, I think the issues mapmakers have with representation boil down to the efforts of the mapmakers themselves. Very little professional effort has been put into actually attempting to earn a voice in a growing entertainment industry. I qualify that statement with the term "professional".
Diamond has spent countless hours and thousands of dollars to get ESV to where it is now, and with success. However, the rest of the mapmaking community hasn't seen any benefits from this. Why? Diamond only represents ESV. The community is fragmented, and that's the problem. If you're a tournament organizer with a busy schedule, do you have time to listen to three different individuals representing individual mapmaking teams and to individually review each map the team is offering? No. That's where the union comes it. It is one voice that goes to tournament organizers with a list of the best maps between all the teams, thus making it easier on tournament organizers.
Does that mean team's self promotion no longer plays a role? No. Teams will have every right to promote their own maps individually. ESV does this with the Korean Weekly. Tournament organizers might see an ESV map there, and then contact Diamond with an interest in using it. There is nothing wrong with this, and by all means this does not overlap with the union.
I think the real problem is that other mapmaking teams have not put in the same level of effort as ESV and Diamond, yet are requesting an equal or greater level of influence than what ESV currently has.
As for the actual act of pitching maps to a tournament organization, that is their discretion in terms of whom they interact with and when. 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. That's creating additional overhead, not less. The only way to make it more efficient is to reign in the individual teams and say "only we will be presenting to tournament organizations". If that's the case, then that's authority. You can't really have your cake and eat it too on this.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: The only way for an overarching body to even be established is for most, if not all, of affected parties sign onto it.
The only bodies that would be needed to get this started are the few needed to fill the council and organizer position, with maybe a writer and graphic designer. Mapmaking teams wouldn't have to change or to sign onto anything. The councils is a group of people that makes a monthly recap thread, as well as the other listed bonuses, to promote all the maps posted that month. That has nothing to do with teams. The union organizer(s) would just be those going up to tournament organizers attempting to get maps from all teams into tournaments. This doesn't require effort on the team's part. If anything, this just helps teams with promoting their maps for them.
See above regarding team freedom vs. achieving your desired results.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: Also to consider are individual mapmakers such as myself -- how do you convince me to be represented by this?
If you don't want your maps promoted in the monthly recap, let the council know. Aside that, you are not affected in any way by the union. You are not signing a membership, swearing to some oath, or anything crazy like that. You just make maps, and the union promotes them.
However, I do share a concern that I've heard among many, which is "Who will be on the council? Who is this organizer(s) that's going to promote our maps to tournaments? Can I trust them to promote my team's maps as good, if not better, than my team currently does?". That is what this discussion is for. Essentially, we can make a council now and start the month recaps right now. However, for the organizer(s) idea to be effective, we will first need to start making contact with tournament organizers. Becoming known among the entire sc2 community with be priority in order for this to be successful.
This is really more of the same as above, as well as acknowledging concerns on who's going to be in this "old boy's club" that I mentioned before. I think it's an overly difficult question to answer, and like already noted, one I don't think needs to be addressed at this point in time. The focus should be on mapmaking teams doing a better job than they currently are, in my opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What does the guy who decides the map pool of a tournament currently do? He copies the ladder map pool, or if he accepted the fact that ladder maps are subpar, he copies the GSL map pool. Should he make the risky decision on featuring a community map in his tournaments, which one? Even if each of the current map making teams (ESV, TPW, Crux, Dream Forge, am i missing someone?) have a website featuring their 3 best maps which of those 12 maps will he pick? That's not to speak of all those map makers who post on reddit/tl who are not part of a map making team. But even if this hurdle is taken and he will feature one community map in his pool these are the reactions he will get:
Pros will hate on the tournament because if features unkmown/unbalanced maps.
Pros will not train the new maps because it doesn't make sense for them to sacrifice training time for one map for one tournament. Since
The map will get vetoed 99% of all matches in the tournament (if the tournament doesn't have some veto-mechanic, pros will hate on it even more).
The map will get taken out of the tournament on the next season, because everyone complained about it and no one played it.
The only solution to this problem which I see, is having one entity (not one per team) be responsible for easily communicating the thoughts of the map making scene to everyone who is not part of it (tournament organizers, pro players, casters, heck the whole community). It would not have to be much, something of a teamliquid post, being mirrored on all other sites (reddit, twitter, facebook, etc.) per month would suffice. I am imaginging something like this:
On November 01 2012 00:01 TLMapCommittee wrote:
TLMapCommittee November Update
Hi we (MemberA @MemberA, OtherMember @OtherMemberSC2, MemberC @MemberC, ...) are the TLMapCommittee. We do this, and that, and yada. Here we would like to present you our work for this month:
Stable Map Pool For November:
List
Some
Maps
Here
New Maps last month, up for testing/voting/discussion:
some
more
here
Upcoming events this months, that support TLMapCommittee:
13 Nov: The more Events
22 Nov: The better
Join our chat channel TLMapCommittee on bnet, if you want to find people to play with, practice on the maps listed here, want to voice your opinion, or just chat with like minded people.
Contact us at tlmapcommittee@example.org ... if you are a tournament organizer, and would like some help one how to implement our map guidelines in your tournament ... if you are a player who would like to help discuss test new maps ... if you are a map maker and would like your maps featured
- The TLMapCommittee
If well done, I think posts like this will instantly be featured every month on the front page of TL. Putting together a post like this every month is not to much work and it permits map makers to continue to do what they are doing right now, and still get the map making community much more recognition by the community, pro players and tournament organizers (pretty much everyone active in the SC2 esports community checks TL, even sponsors).
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.
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 08:07 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 09:41 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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?
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?
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 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 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 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 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 15:36 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.
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 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.
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.
The criticism is by all means welcome, and greatly appreciated. It seems however that the criticism comes with doubt rather full opposition. Thus, I feel the general idea of the union should be pushed forward and is by all means worth trying. We should instead shift the discussion into what we think about the role, services, and details of the union.
Some topics worth discussing: -Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps? -How many should be on the council? How do we pick them? -Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available? -Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? -What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: The criticism is by all means welcome, and greatly appreciated. It seems however that the criticism comes with doubt rather full opposition. Thus, I feel the general idea of the union should be pushed forward and is by all means worth trying. We should instead shift the discussion into what we think about the role, services, and details of the union.
Of course, anyone can form a union, but the doubt expressed is in no small part if the union is going to hold any authority. I mean, I can form a union this moment, sole leader: me. I am the leader of the SC2 mapmaking community, you will do my bidding or be expelled from my union!
Of course it doesn't work that way, you are of course welcome to try but I remain sceptical that the union is going to hold any authority and that tournaments are going to listen because well, currently they have no real incentive. The reason KeSPA got tournaments to listen is because they just pulled their players out if they didn't. I guess you can pull mapmakers out if tournaments don't listen?
iccup, oh i mean tpw will just crush this down as they dont want competition. when one mapmaker elevated his skills to where his peers could only look up... the great one they banned him from the entire site. fair warning to those aspiring mapmakers.
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.
I do not agree with what you said about Diamond in your post, I think he is quite an intelligent man. But it doesn't really matter. Because we are talking about a union here. Meaning more then one guy. Before someone does something stupid, he will have to talk to the other members of the union. Yup, it might be true that they are all amateurs and not professionals. But that is because none of them gets payed, and no one in the map making community is expecting to get payed any time soon. Most people only want some recognition of the map making community.
On October 21 2012 14:27 iamcaustic wrote: 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.
Mapmaking Teams are not the solution IMO. Because then tournament organizers would have to choose between many teams to contact / maps to feature. Players would have to choose between many maps which to train. It's need to be made easier for them, there needs to be some go-to-entity, to make those choices easier for people.
I don't really agree with the whole business point you are trying to make. Selecting the map pool for a tournament is not a business decision. If a tournament chooses to not have Entombed Vally (a Blizzard map) but rather Cloud Kingdom (an ESV map) or Abyssal City (a Crux map) in its pool, this is not going to have any impact on their business, the same players will compete and viewership numbers wont change. Afaik map making teams don't expect to get compensated, so I dont really see how this is a business decision. This only changes if a tournament will feature completly new maps, which will result in getting them a lot of hate, because they are unkown/untested/untrained maps. This is why the mapmaking community needs to step up, and somehow showcase what they as a whole have done the best. So that it's possible for many tournaments to have the same map pool, and not each have to talk to a different guy, who advices to only use maps made by his own team. Go ask any pro player, they have been saying for years that they want a unified map pool for all tournaments.
On the point why a monthly update by some guy wont suffice: because no one would care. Map making teams would ignore his opinion because he either isnt neutral to them or simply because he doesnt have enough clue map making. Players will ignore what he says because, he doesn't understand enough about the game. This is why there needs to be people from every map making team, neutral members from the community and players on such a union.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: -Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps?
I think this is one of the main functions a union could serve, and one which the current system (map making teams) lacks.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: -How many should be on the council? How do we pick them?
I think atleast one person from each of the map making teams. Plus someone neutral like Barrin. Plus 2 to 3 players. However this greatly depends on which persons in the community actually want to participate. We'll have to wait for some big figues in the community to step in here before anything is discussed on this topic.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: -Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available?
I could volunteer as a coder at this point. But I don't think this matters much as of now, since a union would have to be formed before that. And many members in the community have those talents.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: -Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? -What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
I think this union should start out as small as possible to function. Over time other projeccts can be integrated if they want to. But getting the thing going is more important than planning.
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.
I do not agree with what you said about Diamond in your post, I think he is quite an intelligent man. But it doesn't really matter. Because we are talking about a union here. Meaning more then one guy. Before someone does something stupid, he will have to talk to the other members of the union. Yup, it might be true that they are all amateurs and not professionals. But that is because none of them gets payed, and no one in the map making community is expecting to get payed any time soon. Most people only want some recognition of the map making community.
Are they not professional because they don't get paid, or are they not get paid because they don't act professionally?
At further risk of sounding personally (I definitely do not mean this personally in any way but it needs to be addressed). What further council members? EatThePath was suggested? At the current point the mapmaking community is a giant circle jerk. iamcaustic wrote one of the most eloquent and detailed explanations for why he doesn't agree and it shows an absolute understanding and experience on the matter. And EatThePath basically called iamcaustic a troll and some other non nice things. Is that a good council member? Someone who responds to people coming with very articulate and detailed criticism on why something won't work like that? No, it's not, not at all. And this is why the mapmaking community is currently a circle jerk that places people in high positions who simply tell people what they want to hear and that simply agree with them and stroke their ego.
Diamond may be intelligent, but he, self admittedly, doesn't have a clue on how to run what he's trying to run, and calling people you need retards publicly instead of behind closed doors is definitely not the way to do it.
I don't really agree with the whole business point you are trying to make. Selecting the map pool for a tournament is not a business decision. If a tournament chooses to not have Entombed Vally (a Blizzard map) but rather Cloud Kingdom (an ESV map) or Abyssal City (a Crux map) in its pool, this is not going to have any impact on their business, the same players will compete and viewership numbers wont change. Afaik map making teams don't expect to get compensated, so I dont really see how this is a business decision. This only changes if a tournament will feature completly new maps, which will result in getting them a lot of hate, because they are unkown/untested/untrained maps. This is why the mapmaking community needs to step up, and somehow showcase what they as a whole have done the best. So that it's possible for many tournaments to have the same map pool, and not each have to talk to a different guy, who advices to only use maps made by his own team. Go ask any pro player, they have been saying for years that they want a unified map pool for all tournaments.
This is honestly a naïve conception. I can guarantee you that Sundance has weekly statistics coming in from VOD viewing which tell him which maps get viewed the msot, as in, which maps are most likely to generate exciting games. I'm pretty sure he knows the viewer numbers during the live stream as well for each map. It's everything business. We're talking about a tournament that admitted to make it easier on NA players because viewer numbers drop once the last NA player is eliminated, they mean business.
And this is the naïvety by which the mapmaking community can sometimes approach this issue. Sure, you can h ave a great map, fantastic, balanced. But does it further tournament's business? Do viewers care for balance? What's all still in our minds above all things? Fruitdealer winning GSL 1. Why? Because he overcame balance on terrible maps. Crossfire as far as mapmaking goes is absolutely terrible. The balance numbers alone speak for themselves. Yet how long did it stay in the GSL while other maps were phased out before it? Do you think Mr. Chae doesn't know these numbers? Imbalanced map in a way create spectacle and memorable games and that's their business. How many times was on reddit "omg guys, check this vod of John Protoss having an amaaaaazing hold against Jack Zerg's hydra all in on crossfire!", what makes it so amazing? Because it's imbalanced.
On the point why a monthly update by some guy wont suffice: because no one would care. Map making teams would ignore his opinion because he either isnt neutral to them or simply because he doesnt have enough clue map making. Players will ignore what he says because, he doesn't understand enough about the game. This is why there needs to be people from every map making team, neutral members from the community and players on such a union.
Sundance doesn't need a clue in mapmaking. He doesn'te ven need to know what the maps look like or watch the games to select them. All he needs to know is that people watch the vods of games that happen on map X disproportionally more than on map Y, Y is out, X stays.
And these are the business decisions that these companies make where the majority of the mapmaking community is ignorant of, Sundance doesn't give a damn about good maps, he cares about stream and vod numbers.
What you're not thinking about is every awful game on Crossfire or Antiga that made the tournament not as good as it could have been.
Stop nurturing your petty crusade. All you're doing here is disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. I'm not saying you're wrong on all of your points, but most of them seem to be there just to disagree.
Also if you don't think mapmakers deserve more recognition, guess what ? No one cares.
On October 21 2012 18:24 ArcticRaven wrote: What you're not thinking about is every awful game on Crossfire or Antiga that made the tournament not as good as it could have been.
This bleeds through in statistics. If stats show that Crossfire has more people tuning in and more people watching VODs on than say Terminus, then Terminus is out and Crossfire stays. It's that simple.
Stop nurturing your petty crusade. All you're doing here is disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. I'm not saying you're wrong on all of your points, but most of them seem to be there just to disagree.
I, and to a far greater extend iamcaustic, am offering criticism on the idea and got dragged into a discussion about the professionally of the mapmaking and sc2 scene in general. You are in no position to call me out on 'just wanting to disagree' since the obvious only reason you quoted me is to tell me how much you disagree with me, you're not actually replying to anything I said or advancing a discussion.
Also if you don't think mapmakers deserve more recognition, guess what ? No one cares.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: Are they not professional because they don't get paid, or are they not get paid because they don't act professionally?
At further risk of sounding personally (I definitely do not mean this personally in any way but it needs to be addressed). What further council members? EatThePath was suggested? At the current point the mapmaking community is a giant circle jerk. iamcaustic wrote one of the most eloquent and detailed explanations for why he doesn't agree and it shows an absolute understanding and experience on the matter. And EatThePath basically called iamcaustic a troll and some other non nice things. Is that a good council member? Someone who responds to people coming with very articulate and detailed criticism on why something won't work like that? No, it's not, not at all. And this is why the mapmaking community is currently a circle jerk that places people in high positions who simply tell people what they want to hear and that simply agree with them and stroke their ego.
Diamond may be intelligent, but he, self admittedly, doesn't have a clue on how to run what he's trying to run, and calling people you need retards publicly instead of behind closed doors is definitely not the way to do it..
I haven't been part of the map making community for long enough to name any imporant people. But I think everyone who wants to participate and who can get people to vote for him, should be able to. The funny thing is probably no one discussing in this thread would be part of this union, the closest being maybe timetwister because he's on ESV.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: This is honestly a naïve conception. I can guarantee you that Sundance has weekly statistics coming in from VOD viewing which tell him which maps get viewed the msot, as in, which maps are most likely to generate exciting games. I'm pretty sure he knows the viewer numbers during the live stream as well for each map. It's everything business. We're talking about a tournament that admitted to make it easier on NA players because viewer numbers drop once the last NA player is eliminated, they mean business.,,
And this is the naïvety by which the mapmaking community can sometimes approach this issue. Sure, you can h ave a great map, fantastic, balanced. But does it further tournament's business? Do viewers care for balance? What's all still in our minds above all things? Fruitdealer winning GSL 1. Why? Because he overcame balance on terrible maps. Crossfire as far as mapmaking goes is absolutely terrible. The balance numbers alone speak for themselves. Yet how long did it stay in the GSL while other maps were phased out before it? Do you think Mr. Chae doesn't know these numbers? Imbalanced map in a way create spectacle and memorable games and that's their business. How many times was on reddit "omg guys, check this vod of John Protoss having an amaaaaazing hold against Jack Zerg's hydra all in on crossfire!", what makes it so amazing? Because it's imbalanced..
I think you are overinterpreting what tournament organizers actually do. But we will never known unless some of them comes in here. Of course viewer numbers weigh in one the decision of maps used, but not to much. Think about it we would have seen tournaments featuring much crazier maps like Kulas Ravine, which for sure would get them better numbers, instead of the 5000th game on Antiga Shipyard. Tournaments actually care about using balanced maps, because else many games will become boring, and pros will call out these tournaments, because they will get frustrated.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote:Sundance doesn't need a clue in mapmaking. He doesn'te ven need to know what the maps look like or watch the games to select them. All he needs to know is that people watch the vods of games that happen on map X disproportionally more than on map Y, Y is out, X stays.
And these are the business decisions that these companies make where the majority of the mapmaking community is ignorant of, Sundance doesn't give a damn about good maps, he cares about stream and vod numbers.
I dont think this stat exists. Do you really think there were more or less people watching the recent GSL finals on Set 3 just because it features Antiga Shipyard, and this old and imbalanced map makes it more interesting for them to watch?
Tournaments actually rely on having a balanced game on balanced maps because else in the long term no one will care about the game anymore. And a stagnant map pool is not the solution because maps will get old and boring and the meta game will shift revealing imbalances on older maps. And blizzard maps just suck.
On October 21 2012 06:27 iamcaustic wrote: Finally, Dream Forge:
1. No obvious hub for latest maps. 2. Announcements available at http://dreamforge.forumotion.com; no known Twitter/Facebook. 3. No clear business contact. 4. Using a free forumotion account, do I really need to say more?
I have no idea how these guys ever want to be taken seriously with their current setup. This is not the look of people that mean serious business. Not even so much as owning their own domain -- an incredibly simplistic feat to achieve.
You're right. We've been awful in that regard.
Now, back to you, Siskos -
At the current point the mapmaking community is a giant circle jerk.
they deserve far more recognition than they do atm.
I'd disagree.
I'm sorry, but melee mapping already gets far more attention than it deserves. There are currently GM players of which no one knows anything who are far more hardworking and far more talented than melee mappers. Furthermore, there's UMS mappers which is far more daunting and complicated, to create a good UMS game than to create a melee map. There's some extremely impressive UMS games made and no one knows about them.
Seriously, I'm kind of appalled by the self-righteous and entitled attitude of the melee mapping scene. Of basically everything in esports, it's probably the thing that requires the least amount of talent.
I'm not disagreeing with you on a lot of points - but replies like that make you look like you're just here to prove your greater point of "Mapmakers feel too entitled". It seems that's all you're replying for - disagreeing and crusading to prove your point. Mapping doesn't require talent ? GM players deserve more recognition ? True or not (I'd be inclined to disagree, but whatever), this is irrelevant. Can we make the game better ? Yes. That's all that counts.
One last thing :
However, apart from all that, understand that it probably won't ever be that profitable, supply and demand.
This shows you haven't understood anything to what we're discussing or the global mindset of this community. No one ever asked to be paid for maps.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: Are they not professional because they don't get paid, or are they not get paid because they don't act professionally?
Because we don't get paid. I would be dumbfounded if you thought otherwise.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: At further risk of sounding personally (I definitely do not mean this personally in any way but it needs to be addressed). What further council members? EatThePath was suggested? At the current point the mapmaking community is a giant circle jerk. iamcaustic wrote one of the most eloquent and detailed explanations for why he doesn't agree and it shows an absolute understanding and experience on the matter. And EatThePath basically called iamcaustic a troll and some other non nice things. Is that a good council member? Someone who responds to people coming with very articulate and detailed criticism on why something won't work like that? No, it's not, not at all. And this is why the mapmaking community is currently a circle jerk that places people in high positions who simply tell people what they want to hear and that simply agree with them and stroke their ego.
Choosing who will be on the council and how they will get the job is something we still need to discuss. Listing names at this point is slightly useless. However, in defense of EatThePath, I regularly see him posting large amounts of helpful feedback on almost every map thread I have seen posted in the past month. Thus, I would by no means be concerned with someone who has made such a community contribution to be on the council.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: This is honestly a naïve conception. I can guarantee you that Sundance has weekly statistics coming in from VOD viewing which tell him which maps get viewed the msot, as in, which maps are most likely to generate exciting games. I'm pretty sure he knows the viewer numbers during the live stream as well for each map. It's everything business. We're talking about a tournament that admitted to make it easier on NA players because viewer numbers drop once the last NA player is eliminated, they mean business.
And this is the naïvety by which the mapmaking community can sometimes approach this issue. Sure, you can h ave a great map, fantastic, balanced. But does it further tournament's business? Do viewers care for balance? What's all still in our minds above all things? Fruitdealer winning GSL 1. Why? Because he overcame balance on terrible maps. Crossfire as far as mapmaking goes is absolutely terrible. The balance numbers alone speak for themselves. Yet how long did it stay in the GSL while other maps were phased out before it? Do you think Mr. Chae doesn't know these numbers? Imbalanced map in a way create spectacle and memorable games and that's their business. How many times was on reddit "omg guys, check this vod of John Protoss having an amaaaaazing hold against Jack Zerg's hydra all in on crossfire!", what makes it so amazing? Because it's imbalanced.
I feel you are speaking WAY out of your league here, and it is comments like these that might lead people to not take you seriously. You are not a tournament organizer, and thus are basing this entirely off assumptions. This by all means makes this section of your argument irrelevant and pointless. Also: + Show Spoiler +
Map stats are what matter most. Not view counts, vod counts, interesting gameplay, etc. Just balance stats. Yes I'm sure.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: Sundance doesn't need a clue in mapmaking.
Pretending Sundance is indeed in charge of the MLG map pool, which I'm pretty sure he's not, he obviously does need a clue. They've been using the same maps for ages, and by all means watching games on Antiga Shipyard is no longer interesting. The tweet I posted was one of many that came with the outcry against MLG for using such a stale and boring map pool. MLG has been so stubborn, I don't think they have even opted to use newer GSL maps like Whirlwind or Abyssal City. Thus, keeping the map pool interesting and fresh is by all means not on their list of priorities.
Overall however, I feel the the general topic of your concerns, as well as those by others who have previously posted, have already been expressed in great detail. Therefore, answering the discussion questions I posted above would contribute much more to the discussion. Would be greatly appreciated.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: This is honestly a naïve conception. I can guarantee you that Sundance has weekly statistics coming in from VOD viewing which tell him which maps get viewed the msot, as in, which maps are most likely to generate exciting games. I'm pretty sure he knows the viewer numbers during the live stream as well for each map. It's everything business. We're talking about a tournament that admitted to make it easier on NA players because viewer numbers drop once the last NA player is eliminated, they mean business.,,
And this is the naïvety by which the mapmaking community can sometimes approach this issue. Sure, you can h ave a great map, fantastic, balanced. But does it further tournament's business? Do viewers care for balance? What's all still in our minds above all things? Fruitdealer winning GSL 1. Why? Because he overcame balance on terrible maps. Crossfire as far as mapmaking goes is absolutely terrible. The balance numbers alone speak for themselves. Yet how long did it stay in the GSL while other maps were phased out before it? Do you think Mr. Chae doesn't know these numbers? Imbalanced map in a way create spectacle and memorable games and that's their business. How many times was on reddit "omg guys, check this vod of John Protoss having an amaaaaazing hold against Jack Zerg's hydra all in on crossfire!", what makes it so amazing? Because it's imbalanced..
I think you are overinterpreting what tournament organizers actually do. But we will never known unless some of them comes in here. Of course viewer numbers weigh in one the decision of maps used, but not to much. Think about it we would have seen tournaments featuring much crazier maps like Kulas Ravine, which for sure would get them better numbers, instead of the 5000th game on Antiga Shipyard. Tournaments actually care about using balanced maps, because else many games will become boring, and pros will call out these tournaments, because they will get frustrated.
It's a factor of things, in the end how much viewership a map weighs due to a combination of all these factors will be very important.
I am pretty sure MLG doesn't give a damn about balance, though balance influences viewer numbers and therefore they indirectly care, they don't directly. MLG has basically made a couple of farce tournaments specifically designed to give NA players a better shot for those almighty viewer numbers. And they should probably do that if they wish to remain afloat.
I'm however quite certain that picking the map pool in this sense and deciding which maps are out definitely is based heavily in how much viewers a map tends to attract.
I dont think this stat exists. Do you really think there were more or less people watching the recent GSL finals on Set 3 just because it features Antiga Shipyard, and this old and imbalanced map makes it more interesting for them to watch?
Indeed, I am quite sure they keep track of all these things. Why do you think they keep inviting foreigners? Because viewer number spike?
How do you think they decide which maps are out next season and which stay in? That they just do this on a whim? Just wet fingerwork? How else can you honestly explain that Crossfire stayed in for so long. I can assure you that these decisions are not made lightly and viewer statistics play a big role in it.
Tournaments actually rely on having a balanced game on balanced maps because else in the long term no one will care about the game anymore. And a stagnant map pool is not the solution because maps will get old and boring and the meta game will shift revealing imbalances on older maps. And blizzard maps just suck.
This is something you want to be true, but this just isn't true. I'm sorry. Fairness and balance, no one cares about that in the end in the corporate world. Again, MLG purposefully designs tournament formats to make it easier for NA players.
Basically, build a tournament as big as MLG from the ground up and then tell Sundance how to run his business. There's a reason that the KR Weekly is extremely small compared to MLG or IPL or Dreamhack. I mean, look at NASL, they came out of no-where and managed to build a giant league, it didn't slowly grow and even they are known for their technical difficulties but they still managed to create something bigger than ESV could ever hope to accomplish. Because they are actual business people who carefully weigh their decisions and most certainly don't go around calling people they might need in the future retards and idiots on twitter.
On October 21 2012 19:06 Timetwister22 wrote: Choosing who will be on the council and how they will get the job is something we still need to discuss. Listing names at this point is slightly useless. However, in defense of EatThePath, I regularly see him posting large amounts of helpful feedback on almost every map thread I have seen posted in the past month. Thus, I would by no means be concerned with someone who has made such a community contribution to be on the council.
I have no doubts in his capacity as a mapmaker whatsoever. But I agree with iamcaustic, is this to have any shot, it must be ran as a business. Is he good with that?
Ideally you want a mapper who also understands business of course.
I feel you are speaking WAY out of your league here, and it is comments like these that might lead people to not take you seriously. You are not a tournament organizer, and thus are basing this entirely off assumptions.
THey are assumptions, but realistic assumptions nonetheless. This is just how entertainment businesses operate.
I mean, most sponsors and team owners have made no secret of the fact that they don't care about good players, they care about marketable players. This is no different, tournaments don't care about good maps, they care about marketable maps. New maps are inherently less marketable unless they prove themselves, so who's going to be the first to risk it? Vicious was in one tournament, then never again. IPL used Darkness Falls, Sanshorn Mist and Atlantis Spaceship, the last of those got on and got used in the GSL.
This by all means makes this section of your argument irrelevant and pointless. Also: + Show Spoiler +
Map stats are what matter most. Not view counts, vod counts, interesting gameplay, etc. Just balance stats. Yes I'm sure.
So you say. But MLG makes money from ads and PPV. A map which generates more VOD views will bring them more adviews. That is the only justification they need. If a terrible map keeps producing more VOD views for whatever reason then it stays because it brings them more money.
Also, one has to understand that a large portion of the people who watch MLG and all those tournaments aren't high level players and don't have a strong conception of balance, they might as well just like maps because they are pretty.
On October 21 2012 18:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: Sundance doesn't need a clue in mapmaking.
Pretending Sundance is indeed in charge of the MLG map pool, which I'm pretty sure he's not, he obviously does need a clue. They've been using the same maps for ages, and by all means watching games on Antiga Shipyard is no longer interesting. The tweet I posted was one of many that came with the outcry against MLG for using such a stale and boring map pool. MLG has been so stubborn, I don't think they have even opted to use newer GSL maps like Whirlwind or Abyssal City. Thus, keeping the map pool interesting and fresh is by all means not on their list of priorities.
Indeed, Sundance is probably not in charge, I just use his name as a synonym for MLG officials because his name is so darn addictive.
And yes, they're stubborn, but they are one of the biggest tournaments around so they must be doing something right?
There is at this point no evidence that a fresh and interesting map pool increases their viewer numbers. I trust they have their reasons to not change them. It's so easy to just try out new maps. I am quite sure they have their reasons. I would again like to point out the above that relative to the majority viewers of MLG, we are experts, we know things of map balance they don't know, nor care about. Which is also probably one of the reasons neutral depots are not on the ladder. A large portion of ladder palyers does not follow the tournament scene and often doesn't know such a thing exists and they would be confused as hell seeing those neutral depots there.
Overall however, I feel the the general topic of your concerns, as well as those by others who have previously posted, have already been expressed in great detail. Therefore, answering the discussion questions I posted above would contribute much more to the discussion. Would be greatly appreciated.
You're welcome, likewise I must admit you made me think about a couple of things, which is always good.
If you wish to create an organization to promote the map making community, that is something I can support. If you wish to be the one body representing the entire map making community, you are trying to accomplish something that cannot be done, and you will fail.
There is nothing wrong with attempting any of the services in the original post, although some of them will likely not make a difference. Anyone who is still involved with Map of the Month would also likely be involved with this new organization, so that would remain unchanged. Chat channels for custom melee maps have been tried before, and they have always failed. However, if you could actually get a channel to be popular, that would be a great benefit for us.
I do agree with some people here that many of these goals could be accomplished through map making teams. I do not think we need to force one unified map pool (Timetwister does not seem to want this, but others do). If there were two or three respected map teams providing their own suggested map pools, it would still be pretty easy for tournament administrators to find the maps they need. However, if the teams are not filling the roles they could be doing, it would not hurt to have a new organization do them. Considering the state of the current teams, something needs to change.
What I do not want to see is an organization pretending to be something it is not. This community is small enough that we could probably find 3-7 people who most people would be comfortable with, but some people will be disappointed with the selection. It will never represent everyone, and it should not attempt to do so.
On October 20 2012 14:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: Of basically everything in esports, it's probably the thing that requires the least amount of talent.
If everyone made maps like these, I would agree with you. Thankfully, some people have more talent or put more effort into making melee maps.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: Thus, I feel the general idea of the union should be pushed forward and is by all means worth trying. We should instead shift the discussion into what we think about the role, services, and details of the union.
I would recommend not calling it a union. This seems like a more extensive Map of the Month kind of organization, rather than a union encompassing everyone (which is unobtainable).
On October 21 2012 17:03 WniO wrote: iccup, oh i mean tpw will just crush this down as they dont want competition. when one mapmaker elevated his skills to where his peers could only look up... the great one they banned him from the entire site. fair warning to those aspiring mapmakers.
What are you talking about? Chuky500 has not been banned.
On October 21 2012 17:48 ulfryc wrote: Mapmaking Teams are not the solution IMO. Because then tournament organizers would have to choose between many teams to contact / maps to feature. Players would have to choose between many maps which to train. It's need to be made easier for them, there needs to be some go-to-entity, to make those choices easier for people.
People get upset by the MotM results. Imagine how much angrier people would be if some organization was the only channel to get maps into all tournaments. A new organization should promote a solid map pool, but it should not be the only option. Consider what Timetwister wrote about this:
On October 21 2012 13:26 Timetwister22 wrote: 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 19:29 Timmay wrote: If you wish to create an organization to promote the map making community, that is something I can support. If you wish to be the one body representing the entire map making community, you are trying to accomplish something that cannot be done, and you will fail.
There is nothing wrong with attempting any of the services in the original post, although some of them will likely not make a difference. Anyone who is still involved with Map of the Month would also likely be involved with this new organization, so that would remain unchanged. Chat channels for custom melee maps have been tried before, and they have always failed. However, if you could actually get a channel to be popular, that would be a great benefit for us.
I do agree with some people here that many of these goals could be accomplished through map making teams. I do not think we need to force one unified map pool (Timetwister does not seem to want this, but others do). If there were two or three respected map teams providing their own suggested map pools, it would still be pretty easy for tournament administrators to find the maps they need. However, if the teams are not filling the roles they could be doing, it would not hurt to have a new organization do them. Considering the state of the current teams, something needs to change.
What I do not want to see is an organization pretending to be something it is not. This community is small enough that we could probably find 3-7 people who most people would be comfortable with, but some people will be disappointed with the selection. It will never represent everyone, and it should not attempt to do so.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: Thus, I feel the general idea of the union should be pushed forward and is by all means worth trying. We should instead shift the discussion into what we think about the role, services, and details of the union.
I would recommend not calling it a union. This seems like a more extensive Map of the Month kind of organization, rather than a union encompassing everyone (which is unobtainable).
On October 21 2012 17:03 WniO wrote: iccup, oh i mean tpw will just crush this down as they dont want competition. when one mapmaker elevated his skills to where his peers could only look up... the great one they banned him from the entire site. fair warning to those aspiring mapmakers.
What are you talking about? Chuky500 has not been banned.
On October 21 2012 17:48 ulfryc wrote: Mapmaking Teams are not the solution IMO. Because then tournament organizers would have to choose between many teams to contact / maps to feature. Players would have to choose between many maps which to train. It's need to be made easier for them, there needs to be some go-to-entity, to make those choices easier for people.
People get upset by the MotM results. Imagine how much angrier people would be if some organization was the only channel to get maps into all tournaments. A new organization should promote a solid map pool, but it should not be the only option. Consider what Timetwister wrote about this:
On October 21 2012 13:26 Timetwister22 wrote: As I mentioned in the OP, the union does not replace teams. It is just an additional method in promoting maps.
I completely agree with the majority of your post, except that part against, SiskosGoatee, surely you can do better? You haven't even made references to the obesity of his maternal parentage.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to change but Blizzard/tournaments would change their approach and actually come to us and use the content we provide for free all this time, instead of us having to come to them and repeatedly shove our maps in their faces until they use them. It's not like we try to gain anything here and personally I was never into mapmaking mainly for seeing my map being played, but just because I want to see the best SC 2 possible played. Frankly I can't get myself to enjoy SC 2 on this super stale (and partly super idiotic) map pool anymore. Unfortunately only Korean tournaments seem to even grasp the importance of maps for the game and the viewer experience.
I find the idea that mapmaking teams should become a lot more professional and put more effort into it, at this point is actually hurtful. What should mapmaking be about: What maps are the best and should be played or which team/person has the best organization and PR to get their maps played?
Combining into one union will let fewer people who do organisational stuff achieve more. Thus I hope it will actually give us a better PR and stronger voice in the community as a group, while also letting us focus on the mapmaking aspect more.
As Timetwister said, this is actually helping tournaments (and Blizzard) a lot of they want to get in touch with us, because they don't have to decide between different mapmaking teams etc but can just straight up contact the mapmaking community as a whole.
In a way the map featuring stuff is just what MotM does as I think iamcaustic pointed out(?). But I hope this could be much more. Where MotM was just a contest to point out the best maps, this should be an organization that actively showcases the maps and communicates with tournament people, Blizzard and the community in a way that it speaks for the majority of the mapmakers. While before it was mostly individuals and sometimes map teams communicating their individual thoughts, which mostly didn't have much weight.
I will try to answer some of the questions about organization Timetwister had later.
On October 21 2012 20:24 Ragoo wrote: In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to change but Blizzard/tournaments would change their approach and actually come to us and use the content we provide for free all this time, instead of us having to come to them and repeatedly shove our maps in their faces until they use them. It's not like we try to gain anything here and personally I was never into mapmaking mainly for seeing my map being played, but just because I want to see the best SC 2 possible played. Frankly I can't get myself to enjoy SC 2 on this super stale (and partly super idiotic) map pool anymore. Unfortunately only Korean tournaments seem to even grasp the importance of maps for the game and the viewer experience.
I'm still pretty sure the only reason GSL can get away with adding new maps is because it's a large, long, tournament. MLG can't really introduce their own new maps because no one is going to train on them for a weekend. They could of course take over the GSL map pool though.
NASL also comissioned some of their own maps and made interesting changes to some maps. I honestly think the idea of Shattered Temple with modified rocks that break down more easily was interesting at the least. NASL can do this because it's a long tournament with a huge prize pool, they can expect players to study and get accustomed to their own maps. Odyssee was also honestly a very good addition to NASL.
As outlined before, it also might not be in their commercial interest to have 'good maps' in the pool. One has to appreciate that the majority of viewers don't know a thing about map balance and just want a pretty looking map.
I find the idea that mapmaking teams should become a lot more professional and put more effort into it, at this point is actually hurtful. What should mapmaking be about: What maps are the best and should be played or which team/person has the best organization and PR to get their maps played?
I agree, it's not ideal, far from it, but this is how the world, sadly, works. If you want good maps in pools you're going to have to sell yourself.
On October 21 2012 19:29 Timmay wrote: If you wish to create an organization to promote the map making community, that is something I can support. If you wish to be the one body representing the entire map making community, you are trying to accomplish something that cannot be done, and you will fail.
This is indeed a legimitate fear. However if it were possible for the current map making teams to unite I would not see anyone falling short. It would however be required for this organization to be neutral and also accept maps/opioins from people outside of the teams. But I have no concern there, because there is no money in the map making scene, plus there are way less retards in the map making subcommunity than in starcraft 2 itself.
On October 21 2012 17:48 ulfryc wrote: Mapmaking Teams are not the solution IMO. Because then tournament organizers would have to choose between many teams to contact / maps to feature. Players would have to choose between many maps which to train. It's need to be made easier for them, there needs to be some go-to-entity, to make those choices easier for people.
People get upset by the MotM results. Imagine how much angrier people would be if some organization was the only channel to get maps into all tournaments. A new organization should promote a solid map pool, but it should not be the only option.
Currently there is no way for map makers to get their maps into tournaments or even the ladder. The only examples being Crux, because GSL is the only tournament which gets the importance of maps, and ESV because they won the TeamLiquid Map Making Contest, showing how Team Liquid factors in. A union could establish a way for the big teams to get their maps into tournaments. However a union would not block the existing ways to get your map out there (MotM, ESV KW, what else is there really?). A union could still hold a biyearly TL Map Making Contest or something similiar, even helping out aspiring map makers.
Side question: As I wasn't following the starcraft community during boodwar, how did Kespa cope with this issue? I know they constantly got new maps in (obv not blizzard made). What was their approach for this? Were there only a few korean guys responsible, or the whole korean map making community? Did foreign map makers have any chance to get their maps into big leagues?
As far as I know Kespa employed some mapmakers and they were the only one who made the maps for them then. Foreigners had zero chance. But obv these mapmakers could work more professionally and also the whole thing was better structured, cos it wasn't just about making individually good maps but they could also consider what map pool they make and how they influence the metagame as a whole during the process.
On October 21 2012 20:51 ulfryc wrote: A union could establish a way for the big teams to get their maps into tournaments. However a union would not block the existing ways to get your map out there (MotM, ESV KW, what else is there really?).
How, I'm very sceptical towards this? That a union would accomplish this, I'd pretty much see that tournaments are going to listen as little as they will to Diamond with his continued insistence on better map pools.
A union could still hold a biyearly TL Map Making Contest or something similiar, even helping out aspiring map makers.
The reason the TL map making contest was such a success was because it was done in cooperation by Blizzard and those maps were added to the ladder and from there the GSL. 1 of the top 3 maps that got added into the ladder also arguably failed. No idea why, I though Korhal Compound was more solid than Ohana but it didn't get picked up by tournaments as much.
Side question: As I wasn't following the starcraft community during boodwar, how did Kespa cope with this issue? I know they constantly got new maps in (obv not blizzard made). What was their approach for this? Were there only a few korean guys responsible, or the whole korean map making community? Did foreign map makers have any chance to get their maps into big leagues?
They had a few regulars doing it. Also, the OSL and MSL work differently in terms of maps, the entire tournament basically only works with 4 maps, 2 of which typically are replaced next season but this wasn't fixed. You tend to have 1 macro map, (large) 1 micro map (short), one average map and they sometimes threw in experimental things which did bonkers stuff like neutral creep everywhere, a neutral command centre in the middle to give infested Terrans in ZvP or destructible assimilators which when destroyed would actually be like a collapsable rock tower.
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).
This is not a takeover of the map scene. It's a map advocacy group. It doesn't care about anything except getting maps into ladder and tournaments. (This is how I see it at least... is this not the view everyone shares?) As such, it is purely merit based. Merit in maps is contentious. Thus to have any legitimacy it would have to be as democratic as possible. This is not and should not be a business. That is a wacky idea. We do this for fun. Even if we got paid we'd be doing it for fun, not because we get paid. The route to get the ear of tournaments or whoever will be through having the attention and support of the larger SC2 community, not somehow persuading them that they'll make more money if they pay attention to us. (That doesn't even make sense... why do we want to make money for someone else?)
I will address some other issues in another post, issues that have come up that are important concerns that the people voicing them haven't even put quite clearly yet. Incidentally this is my problem with the naysaying thus far. It hasn't had a clear goal, it just sounds like doubt for its own sake. If you want to express reservations and concerns, I implore you to take ownership of them and frame them in terms that have easily identifiable facts, claims, and hypothesized outcomes with tl;dr style summary. Otherwise to even address them we are mired in an amorphous blanket of problems detached from the proposal which has its own uncrystalized form. It's like attacking milk with a wicker basket in order to get grated cheese.
On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote: This is not a takeover of the map scene. It's a map advocacy group. It doesn't care about anything except getting maps into ladder and tournaments. (This is how I see it at least... is this not the view everyone shares?) As such, it is purely merit based. Merit in maps is contentious. Thus to have any legitimacy it would have to be as democratic as possible. This is not and should not be a business. That is a wacky idea. We do this for fun. Even if we got paid we'd be doing it for fun, not because we get paid. The route to get the ear of tournaments or whoever will be through having the attention and support of the larger SC2 community, not somehow persuading them that they'll make more money if they pay attention to us. (That doesn't even make sense... why do we want to make money for someone else?)
I think the point has not been emphasized enough that this will not and should not, in any way, interfere with the efforts that the mapmaking teams can put forth, and that the goal is simply advocacy and support, in a way that does not shut out anyone. This point is the very basis of the idea of a union, and people seem to still miss out on it. Instead, they get caught up on the idea of certain council members, or even the name "Union", things that haven't even been properly discussed yet and are just working thoughts. In other words, try to stay focused, guys. :/
Let me start by saying that I support the idea and you got my sword, bow and axe, etc.
But there have been some very valid concerns raised and some of the reactions of those were overly defensive. I do also share most these concerns. The core of the problem is that we are lacking certain personalities within our community. Forming a union won't neccesarily bring them into existence.
Also, keep in mind that it's easy to agree that the current state of map pools sucks ass, but it'll be near impossible to agree on the maps that should be replacing them :D
Ok so: the problem is that the mappool is mostly static in spite of a myriad of interesting and well-made maps being produced by the community. And the "council" idea proposes to alleviate or solve this problem by increasing communication between those who choose maps for mappools and the people who made the maps. The authors themselves don't need or necessarily want "attention", but must be involved since the maps can't advertise themselves. Those who choose the maps may choose community maps if they have evidence that incorporating such maps into their mappools will benefit their tournament.
So the council's purpose is to be a liaison to mappool-choosers and the rest of the community. Thus it's not the authors necessarily who the council will represent, it's the community. The council needs to be able to show that the community wants new maps first, and then communicate that want to the mappool-choosers.
Currently the extent to which the mapping community shows off their maps is to make a post in a relatively unseen subforum on teamliquid, and occasionally buy some attention putting maps in an open tournament with a monetary prize. The former only shows maps off to people who are already interested in the maps. The latter does get attention to the maps, but not useful or meaningful attention. I'm sure no one who enters the tourney because it has a monetary prize is actually going to play on the maps outside of the tournament (not even to practice, probably), nor will they encourage friends to do so either. These tournaments have no coverage anyway, so the people who might be swayed into being interested in these maps by seeing great games played on them don't actually see them.
So the council is useless if it can't prove to anyone that a meaningful portion of the community (as in, not the melee-mappers within the custom maps subforum) actually want to see those maps. It's easy to point out people complaining about the current pool, the hard part is pointing out specific maps that the complainers want to replace the "bad" maps with. If it can start to make people think about tangible, existing maps when complaining about bad maps, then it's useful. At that point it has something meaningful to communicate to those who choose mappools, and thus it is plausible for new maps to replace old ones in tournaments.
The only thing I'm aware of that is capable of inspiring people to be excited over specific maps is of course teamliquid itself. Not a minor subforum, but the site itself as a whole. Things like the TLMC prove that the higher-ups of TL are concerned with the mappool; that they desire to change the static mappool, and replace those maps with the best maps from the community. Thus if the council can truly represent the most interesting maps of highest quality, it may be possible to receive divine intervention in the form of TL to help get meanginful amounts of people interested in actual maps as being replacements for the hated-maps in the pool. They don't need to run the TLMC repeatedly to find those maps if the council is finding and promoting the maps adequately instead. What they can do instead is maybe run a TLOpen on a mappool made up at least partially of those maps. So the mappool could include the best maps of the current pool and replace the worst maps of the pool with the "best" maps the council can find. Thus the tournament would be presenting the mappool that people arguably want to see in the premier tournaments. If TL is unwilling to do this, perhaps Playhem Daily could be inspired to do so instead. Certainly they've had no qualms about sticking maps not found in ladder in their pool for years now. If they aren't willing to do so on a whim, I don't know how you'd go about convincing them it's in their best interest to do so (with your handpicked maps).
Only once tangible evidence showing community acceptance and desire of having community-made maps in their mappools can be shown will it be useful for the council to communicate with the tournament officials. Communicating with them is easy, you just find an email address, send shit to it, and pray they read it. Making them give a shit about what they read and want to do something about it is the hard part.
If this is possible, it will benefit the entire community. Thus I support at least giving the council a try. To whatever degree you think I can be useful in these endeavors, you have my axe.
edit: lol wtf lefix, you stole my line and some of my ideas while I was writing them
I see two phases for the recommendation effort. The first is to gain visibility in the community and get people interested in new maps. With the new custom melee map UI matching arcade, we have a good opportunity and a much better system for actually getting maps played and getting feedback on them. So the first part is point to some maps and say "hey everyone, play these". If you can actually go on b.net and click join game "TPW Breaking Point" expecting a game, that is already miles ahead of what we have now and will bring in orders of magnitude more games and awareness. Testing and feedback will build legitimacy for the public perception of a specific map.
At that point the second phase of the recommendation can begin, which has the full weight of wide support. This is when you approach tournament organizers or whoever with a serious advisement/request, always on behalf of the mapmaker only with their consent.
Bye for now, look forward to more tonight or tomorrow.
On October 22 2012 01:37 Nightmarjoo wrote: Ok so: the problem is that the mappool is mostly static in spite of a myriad of interesting and well-made maps being produced by the community. And the "council" idea proposes to alleviate or solve this problem by increasing communication between those who choose maps for mappools and the people who made the maps. The authors themselves don't need or necessarily want "attention", but must be involved since the maps can't advertise themselves. Those who choose the maps may choose community maps if they have evidence that incorporating such maps into their mappools will benefit their tournament.
So the council's purpose is to be a liaison to mappool-choosers and the rest of the community. Thus it's not the authors necessarily who the council will represent, it's the community. The council needs to be able to show that the community wants new maps first, and then communicate that want to the mappool-choosers.
Currently the extent to which the mapping community shows off their maps is to make a post in a relatively unseen subforum on teamliquid, and occasionally buy some attention putting maps in an open tournament with a monetary prize. The former only shows maps off to people who are already interested in the maps. The latter does get attention to the maps, but not useful or meaningful attention. I'm sure no one who enters the tourney because it has a monetary prize is actually going to play on the maps outside of the tournament (not even to practice, probably), nor will they encourage friends to do so either. These tournaments have no coverage anyway, so the people who might be swayed into being interested in these maps by seeing great games played on them don't actually see them.
So the council is useless if it can't prove to anyone that a meaningful portion of the community (as in, not the melee-mappers within the custom maps subforum) actually want to see those maps. It's easy to point out people complaining about the current pool, the hard part is pointing out specific maps that the complainers want to replace the "bad" maps with. If it can start to make people think about tangible, existing maps when complaining about bad maps, then it's useful. At that point it has something meaningful to communicate to those who choose mappools, and thus it is plausible for new maps to replace old ones in tournaments.
The only thing I'm aware of that is capable of inspiring people to be excited over specific maps is of course teamliquid itself. Not a minor subforum, but the site itself as a whole. Things like the TLMC prove that the higher-ups of TL are concerned with the mappool; that they desire to change the static mappool, and replace those maps with the best maps from the community. Thus if the council can truly represent the most interesting maps of highest quality, it may be possible to receive divine intervention in the form of TL to help get meanginful amounts of people interested in actual maps as being replacements for the hated-maps in the pool. They don't need to run the TLMC repeatedly to find those maps if the council is finding and promoting the maps adequately instead. What they can do instead is maybe run a TLOpen on a mappool made up at least partially of those maps. So the mappool could include the best maps of the current pool and replace the worst maps of the pool with the "best" maps the council can find. Thus the tournament would be presenting the mappool that people arguably want to see in the premier tournaments. If TL is unwilling to do this, perhaps Playhem Daily could be inspired to do so instead. Certainly they've had no qualms about sticking maps not found in ladder in their pool for years now. If they aren't willing to do so on a whim, I don't know how you'd go about convincing them it's in their best interest to do so (with your handpicked maps).
Only once tangible evidence showing community acceptance and desire of having community-made maps in their mappools can be shown will it be useful for the council to communicate with the tournament officials. Communicating with them is easy, you just find an email address, send shit to it, and pray they read it. Making them give a shit about what they read and want to do something about it is the hard part.
If this is possible, it will benefit the entire community. Thus I support at least giving the council a try. To whatever degree you think I can be useful in these endeavors, you have my axe.
edit: lol wtf lefix, you stole my line and some of my ideas while I was writing them
I entirely agree. Getting larger forces involved, such as TL or Playhem, would greatly help the cause and would probably be necessary for success. A TLopen on these maps would be quite epic, but just a TL highlight for each monthly recap would probably do wonders.
Updated the OP with some fancy quotes. If I'm missing one, let me know!
While most of the feedback is positive, and skeptical at worst, nothing is going to get done if we can't come to a conclusion on a few key questions.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote:
Some topics worth discussing: -Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps? -How many should be on the council? How do we pick them? -Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available? -Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? -What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
I'm mostly hanging out on the SC2Mapster forums, but I think the mapmaking scene could use a bit of a shakeup.
I published an arcade map on the EU server called Mapmakers chatroom. Thats a very straightforward way to go I think every server should have a mapmakers chatroom where interested players/creators can hang out.
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%.
On October 22 2012 07:57 Timetwister22 wrote: While most of the feedback is positive, and skeptical at worst, nothing is going to get done if we can't come to a conclusion on a few key questions.
Some topics worth discussing: -Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps? -How many should be on the council? How do we pick them? -Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available? -Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? -What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
1. All maps should be treated equally; we should promote the best maps out of the entire pool and disregard teams. To pick maps, we should hold tournaments or contests decided by votes from the council.
2. The council should be split into two parts: - Council, which should consist of basically every established mapmaker that wants a spot. There are many ways to pick this, but generally it should be easy to get a spot if you've made a few good maps or are active in the community. The Council will vote on things such as tournaments and anything else we need to put to a vote. - Inner Council, which should consist of community leaders who can communicate with tournament organizers and represent the community. These should probably be elected by vote of the Council, and maybe have to be re-elected every so often, to keep it from becoming the fabled 'old boys club' of yore. Inner Council should bring matters before the general Council for a vote (e.g. should we do x or y?) and so forth.
3. No comment
4. Keep them separate. Or, if you combine them, generate two winners lists (1. Council votes & 2. motm organizer picks)
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: Some topics worth discussing: -Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps? -How many should be on the council? How do we pick them? -Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available? -Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? -What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
1) Both. It's been the point so far that our mapmaking unity is only an existence of support - not replacement - so let's keep it consistent.
2) I'd be comfortable with 5 to 7. 3 would be too few for something like this, where differing viewpoints on subjects such as 'best maps of the month' are important. After things have been established, and we get a feel for how things are running, if we see that we need more, less, or different members, then we can certainly make such a change. The initial selection can be done possibly through the skype chat,and it can go from there(it would probably be most similar to selection of judges for MotM).
3) Hard to say, we've seen a few members that are capable with each area, but as we're still developing the idea it's hard to say if we can get them to dedicate their skills to the cause.
4) Separate. If this is for promotion and nothing else, then it should maintain itself as a separate entity. Certainly the unity can promote the hell out of MotM with each monthly recap, but I don't think they should be one and the same.
5) As few as possible imo. Keeping with the theme of consistency made in points 1 and 4, the unity should serve only the core function of promotion - if we see that services can be performed better by merging then we will do so. Nothing is set in stone, that is an important point to keep in mind. All of this discussion is centered on that point, any of these things can change down the line if needed.
You should have a dedicated place to show of maps, that make them look... delicious and more appealing to players/business people. Both TeamLiquid and SC2Mapster looks... uncool.
On October 22 2012 08:45 monkalizer wrote: You should have a dedicated place to show of maps, that make them look... delicious and more appealing to players/business people. Both TeamLiquid and SC2Mapster looks... uncool.
SC2Maoster seems to be far more focussed on UMS mapping and generally hacking in the editor and TL far more about melee mapping in practice though.
-Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps? all maps should be represented. no exceptions
-How many should be on the council? How do we pick them? Whatever we do, keep in mind that "Complexity kills" (and i don't mean the pro team). The organisation should have very simply structures, and be easy to maintain. Not do too many things at once, etc.
-Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available? Cloud be put on sc2melee.net once it's done. But it's more important to post quality threads on tl and reddit. There will be 100x more viewers than any website we may set up for ourselves.
-Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? I feel like MotM is kind of dead atm, although I am sure someone is going to revive it again eventually, if only for another short time.
-What other current community ran events could be merged under the union? None, really. I feel that running events might be too much of a commitment. The union could highlight any mapmaking related news, council anyone who has questions about community maps, inform the community and it's leaders about new up and coming maps, etc. But it shouldn't attempt to run it's own events, imho. Keep these things seperated.
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.
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.
On October 22 2012 08:34 Rkynick wrote: The council should be split into two parts: - Council, which should consist of basically every established mapmaker that wants a spot. There are many ways to pick this, but generally it should be easy to get a spot if you've made a few good maps or are active in the community. The Council will vote on things such as tournaments and anything else we need to put to a vote. - Inner Council, which should consist of community leaders who can communicate with tournament organizers and represent the community. These should probably be elected by vote of the Council, and maybe have to be re-elected every so often, to keep it from becoming the fabled 'old boys club' of yore. Inner Council should bring matters before the general Council for a vote (e.g. should we do x or y?) and so forth.
I like the concept of having a big pool of people creating ideas and giving feedback and having a smallerpool of established figures in the scene deciding things. However your Idea involves alot of bureaucracy (joining the outer council, deciding who is eligible, keeping lists, etc.). Is it really necessary to have such an entry level barrier or would it be possible to just have the community as a whole as this "outer council", basically anyone who wants to can participate.
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.
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 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.
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.
There'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 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.
There'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 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.
There'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 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.
There'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 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 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.
There'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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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 01:24 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 01:24 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 01:24 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.
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.
I beg to differ, it's called 'map of the month', you can get the top 4 of each month as a manner of speaking and be fine.
If you want you can make it a biweekly, of course it's open to tuning.
I didn't read every post on the previous page, but why would people who don't play the game, who only watch streams, be adverse to the idea of improving mappool circulation? It isn't a positive instance fallacy to only point out complaints people have against the static mappool if there are literally no instances of people complaining the mappool is changing too much. Who wants the mappool to not change? How does anyone benefit by the current situation? It was well understood in the past that one of the big components of broodwar's longevity, especially relative to warcraft3, was its changing and dynamic mappool. Yes, Lost Temple, Python, Fighting Spirit, and to a lesser degree Destination were easily the most-played maps over all time, which could be construed as supporting the claim that most people don't want a changing mappool, but I don't recall ever hearing anyone say "the proscene sucks, they keep playing new and interesting maps, why don't they just play Python?". It was exciting because they rotated the mappool.
The entire sc2 scene's mappool doesn't need to be completely changed frequently; that it doesn't change much lets the effect of metagame changes and balance patches be analyzed; the degree of stability within the mappool helps the players and blizzard in that regard. Additionally, that open tournaments like the Playhem Daily and MLG are accessible to literally anyone in the community by having a relatively static mappool is also good. The metagame however trickles down from the top, and for there to be a good rate of change (which keeps the game exciting and growing) the mappool there must change. There definitely needs to be a balance between changing the mappool and keeping the mappool relevant for the average sc player/viewer. However I think the balance is too far in the static direction. The top tournaments are being held back by the ladder pool being so unchanging. Blizzard has only really changed the ladder pool to correspond with dragging behind the GSL though, so clearly for the ladder pool to be altered the top tournaments' pools must change first. Of course if top tournaments' mappools change too much, the average players won't have enough in common with the progamers anymore to give a shit, and that's an end we must avoid at all costs.
edit: At broodwarmaps.net for a very long time we ran the Map of the Week competition, and it was successful. This was basically in the golden age of foreign mapping, when it was possible for foreign maps to get into PGT and WGT. Eventually we turned it into a Map of the Month competition because it made the selection process more competetive. Some weeks would be incredibly stacked, and others would have nothing worth voting for, and as activity lulled in the dark age of foreign mapping (before iccup began to accept foreign maps into their pool) we changed it to the MOTM, which was more successful. Rather than being strictly rigid, while we aimed for a top3 per month, with the #1 being the "winner", in months with a higher number of excellent (and more importantly, more than 3 well-voted-for maps, as it was to my discontent, strictly democratic) maps, we recognized more in the newsposts, as "honourable mentions". Still, some months were weak as well, and often the #2 map from the previous month would win the next month. From my experience at judging the sc2 MOTMs here, and seeing how many maps worth considering appear each month, I'd say MOTM is still appropriate. There has never been a month I judged where there were more than 10 maps I even took a second glance at. Sometimes it was hard to pick a personal top5 even, and not because there were more than 5 maps I couldn't decide between.
edit2: Oh also, sometimes it took the whole next month just to figure out who won last month (during broodwar). We didn't have a Monitor to whip us into getting a move on choosing and writing up newsposts~
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.
Of course MLG care about things other than viewing figures (And you call me naive)
They care about money, they care about viewer satisfaction, they care about player satisfaction, they care about business ethics, they care about fairness, they care about long-term development, they care about cheating, they care about a whole bunch of things with many varying degrees of care. You could say that they only care about some of those things because they affect the amount of viewers they have, I could say that they only care about the amount of viewers they have because it makes them more money, Someone else could say that they only care about money because it enables them to keep doing what they love doing. The point is that you can't dissolve these things down to 1 issue because they are all inter-related.
Maps are something that are fundamental to the SC2 experience, whether you are a viewer or a player, therefore they are something that MLG should care about. I, and many others, believe that they currently don't care as much as they should.
I agree that MLG are at this point probably the least likely tournament to introduce new maps, which is a shame as they previously used Testbug. How did we get on to the subject of MLG again?
I guess you weren't the same guy I was debating on reddit, He just used the exactly same Antiga Stephano/Leenock line
Of course MLG care about things other than viewing figures (And you call me naive)
They care about money, they care about viewer satisfaction, they care about player satisfaction, they care about business ethics, they care about fairness, they care about long-term development, they care about cheating, they care about a whole bunch of things with many varying degrees of care. You could say that they only care about some of those things because they affect the amount of viewers they have, I could say that they only care about the amount of viewers they have because it makes them more money, Someone else could say that they only care about money because it enables them to keep doing what they love doing. The point is that you can't dissolve these things down to 1 issue because they are all inter-related.
Maps are something that are fundamental to the SC2 experience, whether you are a viewer or a player, therefore they are something that MLG should care about. I, and many others, believe that they currently don't care as much as they should.
Sure, sure. But as I said, I don't believe that you understand better how to run Sundance's business than he does. Maybe I missed something but you don't really have the experience in running such a large scale tournament and neither do most people here?
People here are also biased, they want an updated map pool, they're mappers. People believe what they want to be true in the end, that an updated map pool is good for MLG, this might not be true. Sundance doesn't seem to agree to a large extend.
I agree that MLG are at this point probably the least likely tournament to introduce new maps, which is a shame as they previously used Testbug. How did we get on to the subject of MLG again?
Because I keep bringing him up because Sundance is such a catchy name.
I guess you weren't the same guy I was debating on reddit, He just used the exactly same Antiga Stephano/Leenock line
I guess because Stephano and Leenock are both known to like that map and casters often talk about how they keep saying they like it even though it's popularly perceived as a bad ZvT map. "TvZ: 282-290 (49.3%)" ain't that bad though.
Then again, Stephano's opinion about balance is madness. He'd continue to say Zerg is overpowered versus Protoss if storm one shot brood lords.
Of course MLG care about things other than viewing figures (And you call me naive)
They care about money, they care about viewer satisfaction, they care about player satisfaction, they care about business ethics, they care about fairness, they care about long-term development, they care about cheating, they care about a whole bunch of things with many varying degrees of care. You could say that they only care about some of those things because they affect the amount of viewers they have, I could say that they only care about the amount of viewers they have because it makes them more money, Someone else could say that they only care about money because it enables them to keep doing what they love doing. The point is that you can't dissolve these things down to 1 issue because they are all inter-related.
Maps are something that are fundamental to the SC2 experience, whether you are a viewer or a player, therefore they are something that MLG should care about. I, and many others, believe that they currently don't care as much as they should.
Sure, sure. But as I said, I don't believe that you understand better how to run Sundance's business than he does. Maybe I missed something but you don't really have the experience in running such a large scale tournament and neither do most people here?
People here are also biased, they want an updated map pool, they're mappers. People believe what they want to be true in the end, that an updated map pool is good for MLG, this might not be true. Sundance doesn't seem to agree to a large extend.
I agree that MLG are at this point probably the least likely tournament to introduce new maps, which is a shame as they previously used Testbug. How did we get on to the subject of MLG again?
Because I keep bringing him up because Sundance is such a catchy name.
I guess you weren't the same guy I was debating on reddit, He just used the exactly same Antiga Stephano/Leenock line
I guess because Stephano and Leenock are both known to like that map and casters often talk about how they keep saying they like it even though it's popularly perceived as a bad ZvT map. "TvZ: 282-290 (49.3%)" ain't that bad though.
Then again, Stephano's opinion about balance is madness. He'd continue to say Zerg is overpowered versus Protoss if storm one shot brood lords.
If I was the only one to hold the opinion that MLG needed to update their map pool then I might agree but I'm not, I'm one of many many people. MLG is aimed at me, they want my money. I am less likely to give them money because I prefer other tournaments. When a tournament introduces a new map it makes me more interested in that tournament because I like to see how players adapt to said map. And that's not because I'm a mapper, it's because I'm interested in strategy.
I'm not going to go in to debating Antiga because honestly, the last one damn-near killed me. I will merely reiterate what I said before, that stats don't tell you the whole story.
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.
To go back to this point(it's pretty important):
Of course the views on any given map are going to be divided, from one judge to another. It's why we have more than one judge each time. No map is going to be universally seen as great. Whirlwind for instance is acclaimed by many and is a very solid map in many ways, but I find it a boring and static map that doesn't do anything new. It's our task as a community to put our thoughts together, voice our concerns, and come up with a verdict that represents the entire community as accurately as possible. If we don't do it, who does?
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.
Sisko, you continue to not get it. Your arguments are derivatives of your point that we don't get it. It seems we are at an impasse. But I will do my best to explain why you don't get it, why we do get it, and maybe we can talk about that.
First, I don't want to focus on me, but Barrin gave me a friendly nod which is causing you anxiety I guess. So far that is representative of 1-2 people, hardly representative of the map scene. (Of which you're a part btw.) And I said I don't even want to be on the council if there is one, despite supporting the idea. If anything I stand for one thing, which is map rotation.
Sisko, where are you on this chart? I can only believe you want map rotation, otherwise you wouldn't be on this forum let alone taking part in this discussion. But you act like it's a crime to want new maps and try to make it happen. Just look at your first post in this thread.
If you don't think this idea will work, why? I know, Sundance hates fun. What else? This isn't about MLG. I agree that they are not a good target for map rotation efforts. They are the late consensus adopters of maps. This whole MLG discussion is a diversion.
What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.)
If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there?
That said, there are certainly pitfalls to avoid if we are right in our motivation and we want succeed. Discussing those issues, thumbs up. (cough iamcaustic cough. also hydroponic...)
--------------------
There is one central issue that keeps recurring that I think we should try to decide on. It has been said in different ways, but the crux is that to advocate maps, replacement candidates will have to be selected. Mapping is an imperfect science, understood imperfectly, so how are we going to choose the best candidates?
Let me pose a question. Will any of the candidates be any worse (as maps) than the worst map currently used in the pool of maps commonly used by all tournaments? If we are confident the answer is "no", then it doesn't matter whether the candidate map is objectively the best out of all the options. That is impossible to know; indeed how could a map be "best"?
Of course we should try to advocate the best possible maps -- that is best for everyone involved. But we don't have to be perfect. The goal isn't perfect maps. The goal is map rotation.
GSL is the only source of new maps besides Blizzard and the TLMC. I think everyone in SC2 would agree Blizzard has been lackluster at best. The TLMC must be recognized as a successful venture. GSL maps are received well enough while providing steady progress in this area.
Has the combination of these things achieved the map rotation and map quality we want? For us, definitely no. For the wider community, perhaps. Is it enough for SC2 as an esport, or does it need to get better? That's an open question, though I assume most of us would argue that it needs to get better for long term viability.
In consideration of the foregoing, then, it would have to be said that we need something besides the above 3 things (of which TLMC is an anomaly, a one-off). That is why there should be a mechanism for community maps to supplement the current map rotation schema. A schema, I might add, that is the result of complacency, not design.
So, the other goal is to create a mechanism to include community maps in the map rotation process.
-----------------
Obviously this will not happen overnight. But it's foolish to say that first we need to prove that people want new maps and that new maps are needed. We don't need to prove community support, we need to harness community support.
That is why my personal vision of this idea Timetwister brought up is to leverage the new tools we will soon have for melee map custom games and the spirit of reevaluation and renewal coinciding with the imminence of the HotS expansion. The time is ripe to provide the launchpad for the community to take ownership of the cause of new and better maps. They need to realize their voice will make a difference by taking notice of and participating in the map vetting and testing process. Our voice, of course, will never be successful on its own. The only real success we've enjoyed so far was due to TL speaking for us in the map contest.
People at large don't give a shit about maps right now because there's nothing to give a shit about. It's hardly noticeable in the first place and it doesn't lead anywhere. The first thing we have to change is that it's noticeable. The second thing we have to change is that it leads somewhere. If people see that, even just the potential of it, they may help; we may have a serious contingent of custom game players who put new maps through their paces and tell it on the mountain that Tal'Darim Altar needs to go and New Map XYZ needs to replace it, instead of just inscrutable smoke signals from a map forum pow-wow.
Anecdote: I have a lot of b.net friends and acquaintances in NA masters that love playing on new maps I show them. But they can't take it seriously because they know it'll never mean anything. That's what we need to change. We need to take away the dead certainty that playing custom games is meaningless. A recommended maps bulletin in tandem with a spiel encouraging play and feedback in a new way is the best thing I can think of.
I sort of wrote this like an inspirational speech. That's not an accident, because I do kind of feel that way and I think it's the most effective way to communicate my ideas, but it's also not completely serious in my heart of hearts. I have plenty of doubt that this will ever work. But if it is going to work it has to present a front of buoyant optimism and unshakeable confidence. That doesn't mean we have to promise the world and insist it's possible, when we aren't and it might not be. The beginning will be "we recommend these maps" with some in-depth verbage and "come join us in the new custom games menu, make these maps popular so other people will find them too, and make your voice heard". It won't produce results at first. After a few months, possibly with some spotlight help from TL and some conversation from high-profile personalities, it could catch on. That's all I'm saying.
It could.
Do you have a better idea?
--------------
I want to address choosing maps and leaving people out and competing philosophies of what's in a good map, but this is enough for now.
I agree with Samro that there are not good maps being produced regularly, but there are huge number of good maps that have been produced over time.
I think that the council's goal should not be to promote new maps, but to promote the best maps. And while this is somewhat subjective, I would be completely willing to support a decision by Nightmarjoo, Barrin, monitor, prodiG, etc. That's the whole point of deciding on a council. We will vote for/put in people that we trust to make good decisions, even if those decisions are completely subjective. We should try to account for a variety of positions within the community, and certainly not all of them should be map makers, but most of them should be because pretty much anybody that cares for the quality of maps has spent time here.
I also think that it should not be called a union... using Siskos' reaction as evidence.
On October 23 2012 08:08 RFDaemoniac wrote: I also think that it should not be called a union... using Siskos' reaction as evidence.
The word unity has popped up here and there, I personally like that as an alternative. It doesn't have the connotation that union does, but it still describes exactly what this is.
The TeamLiquid Mapmaking Unity(?)
Cut out the word union though, and options are limited, so not much else has hit me.
On October 23 2012 05:11 EatThePath wrote: Sisko, where are you on this chart? I can only believe you want map rotation
Indeed, I want it.
But you act like it's a crime to want new maps and try to make it happen. Just look at your first post in this thread.
Nope, as said before, I was talking to the actual manifesto, which is not talking about that as Barrin pointed out, it's talking about mostly giving recognition and prestige to mapmakers. Which I think is a bit over the top.
If you don't think this idea will work, why? I know, Sundance hates fun. What else? This isn't about MLG. I agree that they are not a good target for map rotation efforts. They are the late consensus adopters of maps. This whole MLG discussion is a diversion.
Tournaments in general, do not seem to believe that rapid map rotation is a good thing for their viewernumbers and their business, that's all.
If you believe that it is good for them, you will have a hard time convincing them of that because they will see mapmakers as inherently having a conflict of interest regarding that idea.
What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.)
I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run.
Indeed, we are indeed united in that the map pool needs to change, we are however not united in the fact which maps need to go, and by which they need to be replaced. Which makes an advisory board that can speak for 'all of us' a difficult to achieve reality.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there?
Not at all, some people have just said that there are better ways to achieve what you want to achieve and it's best to focus your efforts there.
About this whole 'objectivity' thing. I didn't originally want to open this can of worms but here we go: The mapmaking community styles itself authoritative of what is a 'good map', let's just for sake of argument assume that such a thing exists. Tournaments are not interested in 'good maps', they are interested in 'maps that give them more viewers'. The issue at hand is, are these in fact one and the same? If so, can you prove to them that they are? That's the important part. Can you prove for instance that a MotM winner is likely to be a map which generates viewer numbers?
ESV styles itself as the premier foreign mapmaking team, maybe they are, but they had only 2 maps to penetrate mainstream tournament circulation, and those two maps would not have if it were not for the TL Mapmaking contest, The third winner, Korhal Compound, was eventually removed from the ladder because it was not picked up by tournaments all that much. So you will get this nasty discussion with tournaments organisers.
- Diamond: We are the premier foreign mapmaking team, you should use our maps. - Tournament Organizer: How so? Why are you so good? You have only made 2 maps to penetrate tournament circulation, and that was purely because of the TL mapping contest, why should I trust that you have it in you to create successful maps rather than just using what I know is good already? - D: The only reason we haven't penetrated is because you refuse to rotate! - TO: The only reason we don't rotate is because you don't give us maps that are shown to be able to penetrate!
And then you get this nasty circular argument from there on. This is the 'circlejerk' of the mapmaking community, where the 'circle' is very important. These people hold themselves authoritative on what are good maps, but they have no numerical hard data or results to back it up, it's a circle, they say 'We won a MotM!', tournament organizer replies 'Yeah, but those judges were again similar people who haven't proven to us that they can have the foresight to predict which maps are going to be popular before it happens. It's in that sense an enclosed circle without outside entropy
What they want is for you to demonstrate that you have the capacity to predict which maps are going to be great and popular before it happens, then you demonstrate your authority and ability to see which maps are their version of 'good', as in, giving viewer numbers.
Now, are you even capable of that let alone being able to proof it? How many of us predicted accurately a couple of things:
- Crossfire is massively ZvP favoured, not the other way around. - Metropolis is a big arse turtle fest - Terminus turned out to be very TvZ favoured instead of the other way around what people expected.
I'm going to admit that I did not anticipate any of this when these maps first came out. Especially the crossfire point, it turned out to be the inverse of what people expected, it turned out to be a very bad protoss map. Therefore, we, the people that expected it to be a good protoss map are not authoritative in the eyes of TO's.
Basically, you people tweet at him every other day 'Antiga Shipyard is a terrible map and TvZ imbalanced', TO's look at the stats and see it's very balanced for TvZ and he thinks 'These people clearly don't know what they're talking about, why should I risk my business over this by listening to them?'
What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.)
I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
Indeed you have given suggestions, and they are for the most part shared between us. On the other hand, getting hung up on the word "Union" isn't helping anything. Once is enough to make us aware of the possible connotations, you've done it umpteen times, but it's difficult to count as this thread is quite dense.
If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run.
Indeed, we are indeed united in that the map pool needs to change, we are however not united in the fact which maps need to go, and by which they need to be replaced. Which makes an advisory board that can speak for 'all of us' a difficult to achieve reality.
You have this backwards, you think that somehow because we will inherently disagree, that the council will do nothing and is pointless. Consider for a moment that opposing views are essential, and that discussing them all allows us to reach the most complete consensus possible. If all the council members shared exactly the same view, those with other opinions would get shafted. We must first converse these opposing views, and reach detailed discussion about individual maps, and the council's myriad views on each map, which we have not had yet. This is a reason to start using a mapmaking council, not a reason to abort its creation.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there?
Not at all, some people have just said that there are better ways to achieve what you want to achieve and it's best to focus your efforts there.
About this whole 'objectivity' thing. I didn't originally want to open this can of worms but here we go: The mapmaking community styles itself authoritative of what is a 'good map', let's just for sake of argument assume that such a thing exists. Tournaments are not interested in 'good maps', they are interested in 'maps that give them more viewers'. The issue at hand is, are these in fact one and the same? If so, can you prove to them that they are? That's the important part. Can you prove for instance that a MotM winner is likely to be a map which generates viewer numbers?
Again, you have what appears to be a backwards conception of the problem, and its proposed solution. Nobody can determine the perfect map just as nobody can create the perfect map. We are not searching for perfection, we are searching for assimilation, we are searching for a healthy map rotation. As for judging the qualities of a map, we have a diverse community of skilled mapmakers, if we aren't the ones to decide the merits of a map, then who are? Spectators? They probably don't appreciate the gameplay-related minutiae of a map like we do. Pros? They're biased towards themselves and their own race; they're playing for money, and to win. Blizzard? I shouldn't have to say this. Tournament Organizers? They're probably as unqualified for the job as an average spectator. As skilled melee mapmakers it is our duty to study this game constantly, not only keeping our eyes on the metagame but also studying the way all extant map features influence gameplay as we know it. We cannot do a perfect job however, that's not the point. How can we strive for perfection when we don't even have chance one? You see the end of the road, the ideal result, and fault this Unity for not being able to provide it right away, and summarily dismiss the idea. This is a support, a stepping stone, and in no way a hindrance. You claim to be for map rotation, but criticize to no end(as opposed to supporting) our first true concerted effort to bring about this change. Bringing up potential concerns and addressing them is one thing, but you appear to be arguing simply to defeat the Union. Please clarify if I'm incorrect, as I wish to dispel any misconceptions on either side.
What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.)
I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
Indeed you have given suggestions, and they are for the most part shared between us. On the other hand, getting hung up on the word "Union" isn't helping anything. Once is enough to make us aware of the possible connotations, you've done it umpteen times, but it's difficult to count as this thread is quite dense.
If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run.
Indeed, we are indeed united in that the map pool needs to change, we are however not united in the fact which maps need to go, and by which they need to be replaced. Which makes an advisory board that can speak for 'all of us' a difficult to achieve reality.
You have this backwards, you think that somehow because we will inherently disagree, that the council will do nothing and is pointless. Consider for a moment that opposing views are essential, and that discussing them all allows us to reach the most complete consensus possible. If all the council members shared exactly the same view, those with other opinions would get shafted. We must first converse these opposing views, and reach detailed discussion about individual maps, and the council's myriad views on each map, which we have not had yet. This is a reason to start using a mapmaking council, not a reason to abort its creation.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there?
Not at all, some people have just said that there are better ways to achieve what you want to achieve and it's best to focus your efforts there.
About this whole 'objectivity' thing. I didn't originally want to open this can of worms but here we go: The mapmaking community styles itself authoritative of what is a 'good map', let's just for sake of argument assume that such a thing exists. Tournaments are not interested in 'good maps', they are interested in 'maps that give them more viewers'. The issue at hand is, are these in fact one and the same? If so, can you prove to them that they are? That's the important part. Can you prove for instance that a MotM winner is likely to be a map which generates viewer numbers?
Again, you have what appears to be a backwards conception of the problem, and its proposed solution. Nobody can determine the perfect map just as nobody can create the perfect map. We are not searching for perfection, we are searching for assimilation, we are searching for a healthy map rotation. As for judging the qualities of a map, we have a diverse community of skilled mapmakers, if we aren't the ones to decide the merits of a map, then who are? Spectators? They probably don't appreciate the gameplay-related minutiae of a map like we do. Pros? They're biased towards themselves and their own race; they're playing for money, and to win. Blizzard? I shouldn't have to say this. Tournament Organizers? They're probably as unqualified for the job as an average spectator. As skilled melee mapmakers it is our duty to study this game constantly, not only keeping our eyes on the metagame but also studying the way all extant map features influence gameplay as we know it. We cannot do a perfect job however, that's not the point. How can we strive for perfection when we don't even have chance one? You see the end of the road, the ideal result, and fault this Unity for not being able to provide it right away, and summarily dismiss the idea. This is a support, a stepping stone, and in no way a hindrance. You claim to be for map rotation, but criticize to no end(as opposed to supporting) our first true concerted effort to bring about this change. Bringing up potential concerns and addressing them is one thing, but you appear to be arguing simply to defeat the Union. Please clarify if I'm incorrect, as I wish to dispel any misconceptions on either side.
You don't understand, the point is that unless you can prove that your assesments of what good maps are are accurate, tournament organizers will never listen to your suggestions. They aren't going to risk their viewership over your suggestions unless you can show that you were in the past and that you can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular.
On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
Okay. ^^
On October 23 2012 14:41 SiskosGoatee wrote: You don't understand, the point is that unless you can prove that your assesments of what good maps are are accurate, tournament organizers will never listen to your suggestions. They aren't going to risk their viewership over your suggestions unless you can show that you were in the past and that you can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular.
This doesn't make any sense. First of all, NASL and IPL have trusted mapmakers and used their maps already. And there's a process of vetting anyway so show some stats, so it's not just believe what one person says "here use this map". The reason it didn't work well is because the pros avoid new maps if they can, so it's pointless to put new maps in a tournament unless everyone is playing the map anyway. That's why GSL is the only tournament in a position to use new maps. That and Blizzard's ladder.
Apparently, by your logic, we trust Blizzard to make maps, since theirs have been the majority of tournament staples. And yet their track record isn't that great.
Maps will get put into the drag-their-feet-about-it tournaments when everyone likes them, which will happen if they get noticed and played. That was the whole point of my previous post, not sure if you noticed.
Your suggestion(?) that we need to prove our map competence will never happen anyway, so you might as well be saying that it's impossible and we should give up, hence the first part of that post addressed specifically to you.
I also addressed "objective" map selection. The point is that it doesn't really matter, we can rotate in comparable maps, probably better maps. Also according to your logic, maps don't need to be balanced or good or the things we care about, just some special and apparently unrelated "viewer-boosting" property.
How many of us predicted accurately a couple of things:
- Crossfire is massively ZvP favoured, not the other way around. - Metropolis is a big arse turtle fest - Terminus turned out to be very TvZ favoured instead of the other way around what people expected.
For the record, these were not that hard to see. But Terminus and Crossfire are bad examples because the metagame was still in full development over their tenures. Not that this matters, you used off the cuff examples and we could pick and choose all day.
-------------
I will reiterate, the TLMC was successful in everything we want to achieve. And it had basically all the problems you are pointing out. So why would an advisory committee suffer for them when the TLMC didn't?
On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
On October 23 2012 14:41 SiskosGoatee wrote: You don't understand, the point is that unless you can prove that your assesments of what good maps are are accurate, tournament organizers will never listen to your suggestions. They aren't going to risk their viewership over your suggestions unless you can show that you were in the past and that you can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular.
This doesn't make any sense. First of all, NASL and IPL have trusted mapmakers and used their maps already. And there's a process of vetting anyway so show some stats, so it's not just believe what one person says "here use this map". The reason it didn't work well is because the pros avoid new maps if they can, so it's pointless to put new maps in a tournament unless everyone is playing the map anyway. That's why GSL is the only tournament in a position to use new maps. That and Blizzard's ladder.
Yeah, so that's what I'm saying, only long tournaments like GSL and NASL and OSL can realistically introduce new maps.
Apparently, by your logic, we trust Blizzard to make maps, since theirs have been the majority of tournament staples. And yet their track record isn't that great.
They don't trust Blizzard, they pick Blizzard maps they like. GSL pretty much decides at this point which Blizzard maps they like enough for tournaments and other tournaments follow suit.
Maps will get put into the drag-their-feet-about-it tournaments when everyone likes them, which will happen if they get noticed and played. That was the whole point of my previous post, not sure if you noticed.
Your suggestion(?) that we need to prove our map competence will never happen anyway, so you might as well be saying that it's impossible and we should give up, hence the first part of that post addressed specifically to you.
I'm just saying how these people reason. If you're a tournament organizer. why would you risk putting in a new and untested map just of the word of some people? They rather stick with what stays.
That's why my suggestion is to cooperate with NASL and try to get a 'segment' pro showmatches on brand new maps, that way the maps can be tested to see if people and players like them and because it's not the actual tournament but the entire reason and the way the segment is marketed is to try new maps, they risk a lot less. I feel this is the most realistic option currently and hopefully some of those maps will bleed through eventually to NASL map pools and from there other map pools.
I also addressed "objective" map selection. The point is that it doesn't really matter, we can rotate in comparable maps, probably better maps. Also according to your logic, maps don't need to be balanced or good or the things we care about, just some special and apparently unrelated "viewer-boosting" property.
To me and you, they need to be, to tournament organizers, not really.
Again, I'm just saying how these people reason and to communicate with them you have to understand how they reason.
How many of us predicted accurately a couple of things:
- Crossfire is massively ZvP favoured, not the other way around. - Metropolis is a big arse turtle fest - Terminus turned out to be very TvZ favoured instead of the other way around what people expected.
For the record, these were not that hard to see. But Terminus and Crossfire are bad examples because the metagame was still in full development over their tenures. Not that this matters, you used off the cuff examples and we could pick and choose all day.
MAybe they weren't, but I've never seen anyone point it out with foresight until it actually started to happen.
I will reiterate, the TLMC was successful in everything we want to achieve. And it had basically all the problems you are pointing out. So why would an advisory committee suffer for them when the TLMC didn't?
No, TLMC was initiated and backed by Blizzard, that's the main thing. Those maps were added to the ladder. To further the point, the staff ratings for the TLMC were:
Now, which was more indicative of which map became popular and notable, the staff of the public rating? Experts might not be as expert as they think, or at least, they can't prove it.
On October 23 2012 05:11 EatThePath wrote: Sisko, where are you on this chart? I can only believe you want map rotation
On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: Indeed, I want it.
Okay, Sisko... please try to take this with neutrality -- I have not engaged you in this debate, and I have even quoted you as basis for my position in this whole thing. What I want to know from you is:
1) *Why* you want the map pool to change? And maybe, corollarily, why did you became a mapper on TL?
2) *How* do you see your maps potentially making their way into the ladder, tournament map pools, etc.?
I have to tell you, that I can see your argument to a certain degree. If what you say is true, and any mapper must prove his worth in dollar signs to the people who control map pools, then any one of us, as an individual, group, or whole community, must do so *prior to* the map pool controllers giving the maps any credence. But if that is the case, what can any of us do? Why are any of us even mapping let alone trying to figure out some way to get custom maps into map pool rotation?
To be fair, there are other reasons why one might enjoy making melee maps and even posting them here on TeamLiquid. Granted, it is likely the overwhelming majority that wish to get their map(s) into tournament play, or the ladder. But other possible, and even likely motives are: to improve mapping in general by getting feedback, to find others who might be interested in playing their maps, to put forth mapping ideas for others to see, to gain recognition as someone who maps, to display great map art, to collaborate on a map, to feel a sense of community in the enjoyment of mapmaking, etc.
I for one, while I certainly have hope that at some point a map I create will catch someone's attention as something really interesting for tournament play, I primarily make maps for my own enjoyment, for the community of mapping, and in the hope that if I don't get a map into tournament rotation myself, that maybe one of my ideas might rub off or be stolen (!) in a map that does.
Why do I want custom maps in the map pool rotation? Because I like to see new ideas tested, and I enjoy watching progamers come out with some awesome build for a new map. This is why I loved the OSL and MSL in BW. The new maps always made for an exciting change, in addition of course to all the other hype regarding matchup, personalities, etc. I know what map rotation did for BW -- I want to see that again in SC2.
Unlike probably many people here, I think there are a TON of *good enough* maps to see this through on. Some better than others to be sure, so then the question becomes "well which ones do we pick"? To be perfectly honest, I do not think it matters all that much, I think just getting better map rotation in place is more important. That being said, I definately have favorites over others that I'd rather see played or play on myself. So the question remains "well which do we pick"?
And if we really have to start picking, then sure, I will get opinionated and super analytical and really let you know what I think about features of a map or balance/gameplay concerns. And I will have more favorite maps than others... even to the degree of getting annoyed when those maps for the most part do not seem to make it to say MOTM finalist level (some do).
But that is where I see the major problem with this endeavor. It is not in the "how are we going to prove to X organization that this map is great for viewership", it's in the "how are we going to put together an advocacy group that has one voice for the mapping community". As far as I see it, that voice doesn't exist, even within mapping teams.
Sisko, the way I see your argument is kind of like the following analogy. You are the guy who says "macro better". When you say this, you say it knowing well that in order to execute a strategy effectively, you need to have the mechanics to back it up. You say this to the rest of us with the idea that you are saving us time in improving our game. However, the exception is that our game isn't based on mechanics, we're playing chess.
Essentially you are answering the question "how are we going to get rotation?" with "you need to figure out how to get rotation" -- do you see what I mean? It's sort of a chicken/egg scenario -- you prove rotation with rotation working. That really isn't helpful and begs the questions at the beginning of my post.
So if your argument is really more that only the best maps are going to be able to prove rotation working for the map pool controllers, than really you just need to argue: we need to pick the best maps, we have no REAL consensus as a mapmaking commnity for which the BEST maps are, ergo we need to figure out how to reach a consensus.
I think the biggest stumbling block to this idea is simply the trust of the deciders to whom we grant the voice of the mapmaking community for the sake of advocacy.
Now again, I would be happy to see ANY consistant map rotation. But that being said, I fear having the danger of a precedant (that precedant being the "authoritative" opinion of the "best" maps) that will not be easily undone, a precedant coming through yet another mapmaking clique as I see it. I am disappointed enough in the relative lack of general sociality within the little niche world we have here as a group of mapmakers. I understand we are all competitive about our maps in some way. I understand we are all competitive gamers to some degree, who get our thrills off of figuring out how to get the mental upper hand on each other. But really, when someone like NewSunshine who just a few weeks prior I was having a great time with on one of my few trips to skype-land starts sniping about why I shouldn't map in a certain style because my motivations (?) are wrong...... not that he's one of those on the council or whatever, but the community just doesn't HAVE a solid, unified voice.
In any event, I think that the solution is going to come in two parts, and unfortunately I think one of those parts semi-depends on Blizzard.
The first part of the solution, and this may sound somewhat contradictory given what I just said, IS some sort of community voice / advocacy group. And I think that for all intents and purposes, it does need to promote a certain subset of maps **for initial rotation**. But I think that the main goal of the group should be simply to advocate for map rotation IN ITSELF and not for any given map. Dig up statistics on the success of such a format in, OSL, MSL, GSL, whatever. Develop a solid argument, and lobby to the tournament makers. It can be an active voice and a community approved voice if it stayed as unbiased toward the maps themselves as possible. This can be achieved to some degree by a collective vote of Mapmakers on what their favorite maps have been. Maybe every gives a top 5 and the top 10 are filtered out. Then, a TL wide, reddit wide, B.net wide, whatever poll can be taken and then we will get our maps for initial rotation that we can all agree more or less fairly are the ones that are """the best""" at least in terms of what we collectively see in maps (more or less) AND perhaps more importantly what the community at large wants (more or less).
No it's not scientific. It doesn't have guaranteed results. But when viewership goes up because new maps are being introduced, if one's a flop, throw the next one in. The numbers in terms of potential viewers from community involvement should at least make tournament organizers listen, even if not every map "proves" to be a super awesome fighting spirit. Even maps that wind up being broken and replaced generally wind up producing some really fun and watchable games (until the one, and perhaps even including the one that breaks it, e.g. Flash on Monty Hall).
Anyway, that's how I at least see this advocacy group working out.
The second part of this, is where I see another facet to this advocacy group that I don't think is talked about enough, and that I think NEEDS to be discussed more, is the angle of attack we might be able to take in getting community support for the kinds of ideas that would make playing melee within SC2 better. While I understand as Plexa put it many times (including to me in a PM a while back) that "TL is not B.net" this is the home of melee mappers for SC2 by and large and we need to figure out how to spill over into B.net, reddit, whatever the good ideas that would make SC2 much more custom map friendly.
I realize some of this happens already, but I think that with all the brain power that's put into the sometimes overly-aggresive critiquing of maps, we could really start to think up some ways in which Blizzard might be able to very simply convert some of their already existing functionality into some things that might be really useful for both tournament and casual gamers alike. And in doing so, form a sort of consensus bucket list for Blizzard to fill that would hopefully be more or less agreed upon and be lobbied for community support. If the whole community could point to a list and say, "yup, I agree with this" I think Blizzard might be more inclined to move on it. Hell, they moved on the suggestion to the Widow mine with much less.
Anyway, the point is I think there are plenty of these kinds of ideas out there, and I know I've had a few of my own, which I think don't get discussed enough, and don't get analyzed enough, and I think this group might be able to effectively come up with a way to sort of draw up the requirements and arguments for such things in a way that is comprehensive, yet concise enough for people to look at it and say "yup, Blizzard, do it" and for Blizzard to look at it and say "yeah that makes sense" and actually do it.
That is what I hope to see out of a group like this. And I apologize for getting a little stream of consciousness there, so:
TL;DR -- Actually, it's not that long go read, but just in case: 1) I agree with Sisko on being wary of supporting an advocacy group that doesn't really have a unified voice. 2) I disagree ultimately with Sisko that both we *need* to prove map rotation works to get it to happen and that we need to have a plan to do so in place before we start discussing how we plan to plan to do so. 3) I want this advocacy group to be a voice solely for advocating map rotation, while being as unbaised toward maps as possible. 4) I want this advocacy group to be a voice for how Blizzard can go about making the game better to support tournament map rotation as well as ladder map rotation, and other forms of promoting custom (melee in particular) maps. 5) I'm up way too late, stream of consciousnes, sry -- next time it will be well written. >.<
EDIT: Damn it guys! I put you two on hold position.... now I have to see if you said anything that affects this.... EDIT2: Well, I guess it does and it doesn't... I think my points still stand even if my undertanding of Sisko's point of view may have been in error to some degree. EDIT3: some speeling, p'nctuat!on, & clarity
On October 23 2012 17:23 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: 3) I want this advocacy group to be a voice solely for advocating map rotation, while being as unbaised toward maps as possible.
if it is purely about letting blizzard know that map rotation is needed, than why connect this idea to a council that is the brain child of the map making community?
connecting us with the idea to ask for more maps is going to lead into counter-arguments that say map makers want attention/profit share etc.
possibly there actually are better platforms, coming from a player/caster/watcher direction, to approach blizzard and ask for more map rotation.
if there was more map rotation on ladder than we had more new maps in tournaments-and the other way around. But taking viewing experience as the starting point one would argue that low-level player and watchers and high-level players who are being watched hsould play on the same maps long term (that are being rotated regularly btw).
so to put it all in one sentence: a council formed by map makers in order to promote more divers map pools is a nice lobby, but possibly not the one with most street credibility and on the long term this will not help to produce better maps, hence the outcry for more map rotation has to come from another side here. reddit?
Basically what you ask for is a group to motivate the use of more custom maps - it is the promotion-role that Diamond took. It helped, but in the future we need better ideas beside promoting some map as the best map ever.
yet the promotion is needed, but i want to argue if this is the map makers role. players cast occasionally, not most of the time
On October 23 2012 17:19 EatThePath wrote: You think we can't get community maps used without proving expertise. You think we can't prove expertise.
You think we can't get community maps used.
...?
Almost, I said you can't get maps in the regular seasons of tournaments like MLG without expertise probably. That is why I believe the NASL segment is the best solution. Get some people (NASL is most likely I believe to to this) to dedicate a special segment to letting pro gamers have showmatches on unknown maps and let people vote if they like them, that way the maps get proven without risking the regular season because I currently do not believe that tournaments are willing to risk their regular season over unproven maps.
On October 23 2012 17:23 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: Indeed, I want it.
Okay, Sisko... please try to take this with neutrality -- I have not engaged you in this debate, and I have even quoted you as basis for my position in this whole thing. What I want to know from you is:
1) *Why* you want the map pool to change? And maybe, corollarily, why did you became a mapper on TL?
I like to see fresh new maps. I became a mapper because I was bored and opened up the editor to try some ideas I had. I'm still not really a mapper like most people here because I don't make 'serious' maps. All my maps are highly experimental mainly for me to test if such unorthodox layouts can work. I posted some of them on TL because a friend of mine asked me to and she has a tendency to not speak to me unless I do when I make one.
2) *How* do you see your maps potentially making their way into the ladder, tournament map pools, etc.?
Not at all. As said above, my maps are experimental and probably "bad", I make maps with unconventional properties to them mainly because I want to test with friends how they play out. I aestheticize them up a little bit because I enjoy doing that.
I mean this is the first map I ever made. It has a couple of 3mineral+1gas expansions on it, no way Blizzard would ever accept that madness in the ladder. I do enjoy playing on that map with friends though and games get kind of weird on it. The map sort of has its own metagame and expansion timings.
I have to tell you, that I can see your argument to a certain degree. If what you say is true, and any mapper must prove his worth in dollar signs to the people who control map pools, then any one of us, as an individual, group, or whole community, must do so *prior to* the map pool controllers giving the maps any credence. But if that is the case, what can any of us do? Why are any of us even mapping let alone trying to figure out some way to get custom maps into map pool rotation?
These are businesspeople, can you blame them for not wanting to risk their viewer numbers over unproven maps when they have proven maps?
That's why I believe the dedicated NASL segment is the best shot specifically to try out new maps and prove them and let progamers play on them.
To be fair, there are other reasons why one might enjoy making melee maps and even posting them here on TeamLiquid. Granted, it is likely the overwhelming majority that wish to get their map(s) into tournament play, or the ladder. But other possible, and even likely motives are: to improve mapping in general by getting feedback, to find others who might be interested in playing their maps, to put forth mapping ideas for others to see, to gain recognition as someone who maps, to display great map art, to collaborate on a map, to feel a sense of community in the enjoyment of mapmaking, etc.
I'm sure a lot of people have their different reasons yes. But I do believe that wanting to get maps in tournament play is probably the biggest motivation for a lot of people, I never really cared that much about that.
I for one, while I certainly have hope that at some point a map I create will catch someone's attention as something really interesting for tournament play, I primarily make maps for my own enjoyment, for the community of mapping, and in the hope that if I don't get a map into tournament rotation myself, that maybe one of my ideas might rub off or be stolen (!) in a map that does.
Why do I want custom maps in the map pool rotation? Because I like to see new ideas tested, and I enjoy watching progamers come out with some awesome build for a new map. This is why I loved the OSL and MSL in BW. The new maps always made for an exciting change, in addition of course to all the other hype regarding matchup, personalities, etc. I know what map rotation did for BW -- I want to see that again in SC2.
BW is definitely more daring to be experimental than WoL in terms of maps. But it's important to note that BW is also far less balanced as far as maps go. 40-60 was acceptable in BW, in WoL fans no longer accept that.
Unlike probably many people here, I think there are a TON of *good enough* maps to see this through on. Some better than others to be sure, so then the question becomes "well which ones do we pick"? To be perfectly honest, I do not think it matters all that much, I think just getting better map rotation in place is more important. That being said, I definately have favorites over others that I'd rather see played or play on myself. So the question remains "will which do we pick"?
Honestly, I agree and I think people are being elitist for the sake of it, acting like maps are all bad to appear serious and critical. The point is that of the supposedly only 4 maps they claim exist are 'worthy', each has a different 4 sets of maps, so yeah. Again, the thing of 'authority' is that if two people disagree they can't both be authoritative. Ask every physicist 'Is the speed of light constant and absolute?' they will all say 'YES!', that is why they are authoritative on such matters, they agree with each other.
But that is where I see the major problem with this endeavor. It is not in the "how are we going to prove to X organization that this map is great for viewership", it's in the "how are we going to put together an advocacy group that has one voice for the mapping community". As far as I see it, that voice doesn't exist, even within mapping teams.
I agree, it's one of the many problems. This 'council' will create unrest because many people will feel that the council does not represent the mapping community as a whole. the council will advocate map X, significant parts of the community will not like map X.
Sisko, the way I see your argument is kind of like the following analogy. You are the guy who says "macro better". When you say this, you say it knowing well that in order to execute a strategy effectively, you need to have the mechanics to back it up. You say this to the rest of us with the idea that you are saving us time in improving our game. However, the exception is that our game isn't based on mechanics, we're playing chess.
Not really, it's more that you people ask 'How can I get 60 roaches at the 8 minute mark' , I'm saying "You can't!" You must look for another strategy to win than 60 raoches at 8 minutes.
Essentially you are answering the question "how are we going to get rotation?" with "you need to figure out how to get rotation" -- do you see what I mean? It's sort of a chicken/egg scenario -- you prove rotation with rotation working. That really isn't helpful and begs the questions at the beginning of my post.
No, I'm sayingf that at this point it is an unrealistic goal to influence the rotation lf major tournaments heavily and you need to start smaller, like with the NASL segment.
So if your argument is really more that only the best maps are going to be able to prove rotation working for the map pool controllers, than really you just need to argue: we need to pick the best maps, we have no REAL consensus as a mapmaking commnity for which the BEST maps are, ergo we need to figure out how to reach a consensus.
It definitely helps to prove that you're authoritative, if every famous mapmaker advocates another map and they also say the maps that the other advocates are bad then tournament organizers are going to think they have no place in listening to them yes.
I think the biggest stumbling block to this idea is simply the trust of the deciders to whom we grant the voice of the mapmaking community for the sake of advocacy.
MAybe the Mapmaking community will trust them, are they going to be democratically elected though?
THe bigger issue is, will tournaments trust them?
Now again, I would be happy to see ANY consistant map rotation. But that being said, I fear having the danger of a precendant that will not be easily undone in forming yet another mapmaking clique as I see it. I am disappointed enough in the relative lack of general sociality within the little niche world we have here as a group of mapmakers. I understand we are all competitive about our maps in some way. I understand we are all competitive gamers to some degree, who get our thrills off of figuring out how to get the mental upper hand on each other. But really, when someone like NewSunshine who just a few weeks prior I was having a great time with on one of my few trips to skype-land starts sniping about why I shouldn't map in a certain style because my motivations (?) are wrong...... not that he's one of those on the council or whatever, but the community just doesn't HAVE a solid, unified voice.
They don't, also, to be a bit more cynical, many mapmakers are like what, platinum league, diamond league? IronManSC is gold league I believe? Is his understanding of the game great enough? Apparently it is. I would say that as a high master player frequently facing GM's I know the game a thousand times better than he though. So why does this guy know better what makes a good map than I? It's a yes-no game until again, one party can proof that they can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular. Which can't be done because map pools are static and maps don't really fight for merit.
The first part of the solution, and this may sound somewhat contradictory given what I just said, IS some sort of community voice / advocacy group. And I think that for all intents and purposes, it does need to promote a certain subset of maps **for initial rotation**. But I think that the main goal of the group should be simply to advocate for map rotation IN ITSELF and not for any given map. Dig up statistics on the success of such a format in, OSL, MSL, GSL, whatever. Develop a solid argument, and lobby to the tournament makers. It can be an active voice and a community approved voice if it stayed as unbiased toward the maps themselves as possible. This can be achieved to some degree by a collective vote of Mapmakers on what their favorite maps have been. Maybe every gives a top 5 and the top 10 are filtered out. Then, a TL wide, reddit wide, B.net wide, whatever poll can be taken and then we will get our maps for initial rotation that we can all agree more or less fairly are the ones that are """the best""" at least in terms of what we collectively see in maps (more or less) AND perhaps more importantly what the community at large wants (more or less).
No it's not scientific. It doesn't have guaranteed results. But when viewership goes up because new maps are being introduced, if one's a flop, throw the next one in. The numbers in terms of potential viewers from community involvement should at least make tournament organizers listen, even if not every map "proves" to be a super awesome fighting spirit. Even maps that wind up being broken and replaced generally wind up producing some really fun and watchable games (until the one, and perhaps even including the one that breaks it, e.g. Flash on Monty Hall).
Anyway, that's how I at least see this advocacy group working out.
The second part of this, is where I see another facet to this advocacy group that I don't think is talked about enough, and that I think NEEDS to be discussed more, is the angle of attack we might be able to take in getting community support for the kinds of ideas that would make playing melee within SC2 better. While I understand as Plexa put it many times (including to me in a PM a while back) that "TL is not B.net" this is the home of melee mappers for SC2 by and large and we need to figure out how to spill over into B.net, reddit, whatever the good ideas that would make SC2 much more custom map friendly.
It probably works the best, but the point is, tournaments are taking a risk here instead of sticking what what they know works. Maybe this is the best system for the sake of getting good maps, but are tournaments willing to risk it. They are risking their income, not mappers here.
I seriously hope this will stop being just talks and start being actions, I suggest you make a date and ask for possible candidates, and maybe something like a week after, we make a vote. Or maybe it shouldn't be democratic, I don't know, but it should happen as soon as possible. Right now there are so many different opinions that collide with each other, therefore I think that a single voice consisting of the best mapmakers that argue together until they decide something is the best solution to the pluralism. Also, there should be a chairman which then talks to the organizations or w/e to get things done, cause having a single person in charge is the BEST thing that we can do.
On October 23 2012 17:23 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: 3) I want this advocacy group to be a voice solely for advocating map rotation, while being as unbaised toward maps as possible.
if it is purely about letting blizzard know that map rotation is needed, than why connect this idea to a council that is the brain child of the map making community?
connecting us with the idea to ask for more maps is going to lead into counter-arguments that say map makers want attention/profit share etc.
possibly there actually are better platforms, coming from a player/caster/watcher direction, to approach blizzard and ask for more map rotation.
if there was more map rotation on ladder than we had more new maps in tournaments-and the other way around. But taking viewing experience as the starting point one would argue that low-level player and watchers and high-level players who are being watched hsould play on the same maps long term (that are being rotated regularly btw).
so to put it all in one sentence: a council formed by map makers in order to promote more divers map pools is a nice lobby, but possibly not the one with most street credibility and on the long term this will not help to produce better maps, hence the outcry for more map rotation has to come from another side here. reddit?
Basically what you ask for is a group to motivate the use of more custom maps - it is the promotion-role that Diamond took. It helped, but in the future we need better ideas beside promoting some map as the best map ever.
yet the promotion is needed, but i want to argue if this is the map makers role. players cast occasionally, not most of the time
Well, I think that's a fair objection, but here's my take.
First, and I'm sorry I didn't specify as clearly in my TL;DR, I think that the advocacy for *tournament* map pool should be one of the two primary focuses of the group. I don't think Blizzard needs to be lobbied in terms of saying "hey, you should rotate you ladder maps more often" -- I think the community already does that, as you pointed out. For the *tournaments*, the ones that are conducive to a more regularly changing map pool should be targeted (so not the MLG's as much). If they already do it "regularly", is it regularly enough? Are they considering any of ::infomercial wave:: these options? Did they know that the X statistic of frequently changing maps in Y tournament yielded Z? Et cetera. I mean whatever we can throw at them in terms of arguments, salesmenship, whatever, I do have a specific plan per se. :p But I would hope the group could lead the way in discussing / planning those specifics.
Second, there's no money involved for the mappers, or the advocacy group. At least not right now. Maybe there will be down the line. But as is, the only thing that custom mappers could get is attention, and I mean really, are the tournament organizers going to not say "and here's Barkfligon by Samro of TeamLiquid" (you can't have that name btw XD)? If custom maps, and thier mappers start to gain cred, *could* there be talk of money in the future? Sure, but things are not really there yet -- not even the arcade is set up for that stuff and Blizz has been talking about it for how long? And once the cred comes, are they going to be surprised when mappers would like to be compensated? I doubt it, and I doubt it is that much of a stumbling block in terms of the big picture.
Third, I absolutely would want casters, players, the community at large to start to praise custom maps, and to give the best testimonials. However, we still have to be our own best salesmen. You can't go into an interview and say, "hey umm.. I do this really well, but uh, I want you to be the judge of that" and expect to land the job. You have to go in with confidence in yourself and your product. Once you get someone hooked, you leverage word of mouth, hence my idea for community input on the "initial maps for rotation". Maybe if there were some notable pros or casters to show up on that survey, it adds to the cred going into the talk with tournaments. But as far as selling the tournaments on it, I think that it pretty much has to come from "us", and that we should be more active as a whole (i.e. the advocacy group/subset) in selling oursselves and the product to tournaments. If we don't have the confidence to approach and say, "oh we just make the maps, but we wish you would use them", how much cred do you think that gives us? And I mean, part of the objection I've read about Diamond bring the voice of mapping is simply the fact that he has an ulterior motive... at least "our" intentions are clear when we promote "our" maps as a whole.
Fourth, in a similar vein but not exactly the same, the second primary focus of the group should be to advocate to Blizz, not *that* the ladder should change more frequently, but *The Specific Ways In Which* the ladder (or non-ranked matchmaking) can be used in ways that actually promote custom maps, custom ladder pools, more frequently changing maps, etc. I mean like, think big stuff. For example, an idea I've had (one of many) would be to allow a group to purchase account right to host a ladder & tournament through the game client. The group selects the maps, people sign up for it. Blizzard gets a percentage *Through The Game Client* of enterence fees, bounty, flat fee, w/e. The top 32 on the ladder qualify for the tourney, the game takes care of the transition to the tournament. Boom, people get custom map selection, can play in the places they want to play. I'm sure it means work for them, maybe they thought of it. But if we tell them exactly what would be good, what we might be looking to systematically help everyone win, AND get the community behind it....? Do I need to go on? I mean worst comes to worst another game looks at our ideas, implements them and now Blizzard has more pressure to actually follow through on something we want.
----------------------
I mean, I get that we would all like in some way for their to be a universally agreed upon map pool, that is all at the same time the best objectively, and the best in terms of viewer attractiveness (cuz the first guarantees the second, right?), but the best in terms of the present I think is getting it to the point where the "best" will inevitably make it into play because the pools are rotating enough. Eventually, the MLG's will come around, too. (And I realize some staple maps are good for the scene as well, but at this point -- been there done that... time to move it along.)
On October 23 2012 19:56 moskonia wrote: I seriously hope this will stop being just talks and start being actions, I suggest you make a date and ask for possible candidates, and maybe something like a week after, we make a vote. Or maybe it shouldn't be democratic, I don't know, but it should happen as soon as possible. Right now there are so many different opinions that collide with each other, therefore I think that a single voice consisting of the best mapmakers that argue together until they decide something is the best solution to the pluralism. Also, there should be a chairman which then talks to the organizations or w/e to get things done, cause having a single person in charge is the BEST thing that we can do.
I think this would be quite foolhardy to just rush into something for something sake because there's not much agreement -- how much authority or pursuasion would such an intiative have then?
Now again, I would be happy to see ANY consistant map rotation. But that being said, I fear having the danger of a precendant that will not be easily undone in forming yet another mapmaking clique as I see it. I am disappointed enough in the relative lack of general sociality within the little niche world we have here as a group of mapmakers. I understand we are all competitive about our maps in some way. I understand we are all competitive gamers to some degree, who get our thrills off of figuring out how to get the mental upper hand on each other. But really, when someone like NewSunshine who just a few weeks prior I was having a great time with on one of my few trips to skype-land starts sniping about why I shouldn't map in a certain style because my motivations (?) are wrong...... not that he's one of those on the council or whatever, but the community just doesn't HAVE a solid, unified voice.
They don't, also, to be a bit more cynical, many mapmakers are like what, platinum league, diamond league? IronManSC is gold league I believe? Is his understanding of the game great enough? Apparently it is. I would say that as a high master player frequently facing GM's I know the game a thousand times better than he though. So why does this guy know better what makes a good map than I? It's a yes-no game until again, one party can proof that they can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular. Which can't be done because map pools are static and maps don't really fight for merit.
do players have to show how good their understanding of the game is by analyzing as a co-commentator? some do and are good at it. do map makers have to cast? maybe they should sometimes in order to prove how well they understand what makes a good and entertaining match.
but honestly i do not understand your calculation here. both map making and playing need dedication, understanding and time. someones macro mechanics could be bad and he will never be a top player. someones texturing-mechanics might lack significantly and he wants everybody to believe he is super elitest because his gameplay-first attitude does not allow him to make some nice visuals.
why do i write about all this? i am trying to get back to your starting point and the quote that it might be hard to find a group of people that speak with one voice. there are so many different understanding what makes a good map and what attitude helps to produce a good map. while there is a lot of talking, few things happen. i am here long enough and lucky enough with maps being played (or not) in tlmc and motm might be one of the guys whos maps seen some plays at least - yet i think map makers should focus more on maps and at the same time desperately needs others who do the selecting, highlighting of maps.
-
the reason why i strongly support the idea of a council is that melee map making needs a head, a spokesperson to orchestrate the "lobby" for map making that has to operate on very different levels. the lobby could be a network of people that is open, everybody should be part of it really. I try to make better maps and present them in a way it gets bigger attention, yet i can also be someone who is in a map making team who supports others and gets feedback from them. at the same time i can think about what could come next for map making "after motm" and what could be good formats for melee maps. i know some guys are working on a map data base and this could be a strong force in the map making community. Yet another thing is a vocal head/council - if you are not happy with its work select a new one. or get together a council that is appointed and supported by TL, including sticky threads for outstanding maps or even map feature threads (like featured news).
here is a lot of stuff that can be done in various ways through different protagonists. a council does not take away the responsibility from every map making individual anyway. it is just a selected group of people YOU want to trust.
and this is where the whole "union" idea comes from imo. if you do not trust that group that is to be formed, that don't be part of it.
What I think would be useful to our cause is if we could get a well known SC2 personality to write an article on TL about the benefit of a more regularly rotated map pool. I think ideally day9 would be the perfect candidate as his brood war credentials give his authority more weight but someone like Doa would be great too.
This is something that we could do ourselves but then you run in to the problem of it looking like we only want to further our own agenda. Either way I feel like it would get a lot of attention from the community as it is clearly something that is a hot topic right now.
A combination of larger community support/pressure for new maps, advocacy from well respected SC2 figures and a Mapping council that delivers viable alternatives to the current maps, would, in my opinion, be likely get those that pick the SC2 map pools to make changes to the current system that we have.
My preference for the name of this council is currently the TLMC (Team Liquid Mappers Council) but I am open to alternatives.
Now again, I would be happy to see ANY consistant map rotation. But that being said, I fear having the danger of a precendant that will not be easily undone in forming yet another mapmaking clique as I see it. I am disappointed enough in the relative lack of general sociality within the little niche world we have here as a group of mapmakers. I understand we are all competitive about our maps in some way. I understand we are all competitive gamers to some degree, who get our thrills off of figuring out how to get the mental upper hand on each other. But really, when someone like NewSunshine who just a few weeks prior I was having a great time with on one of my few trips to skype-land starts sniping about why I shouldn't map in a certain style because my motivations (?) are wrong...... not that he's one of those on the council or whatever, but the community just doesn't HAVE a solid, unified voice.
They don't, also, to be a bit more cynical, many mapmakers are like what, platinum league, diamond league? IronManSC is gold league I believe? Is his understanding of the game great enough? Apparently it is. I would say that as a high master player frequently facing GM's I know the game a thousand times better than he though. So why does this guy know better what makes a good map than I? It's a yes-no game until again, one party can proof that they can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular. Which can't be done because map pools are static and maps don't really fight for merit.
do players have to show how good their understanding of the game is by analyzing as a co-commentator? some do and are good at it. do map makers have to cast? maybe they should sometimes in order to prove how well they understand what makes a good and entertaining match.
but honestly i do not understand your calculation here. both map making and playing need dedication, understanding and time. someones macro mechanics could be bad and he will never be a top player. someones texturing-mechanics might lack significantly and he wants everybody to believe he is super elitest because his gameplay-first attitude does not allow him to make some nice visuals.
That's nice, but that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is, how can tournament organizers know this difference? As pointed out by many people, they don't actually know a good map from a bad map, to decide which maps are going to be in the pool, numbers are all they go by.
Again, the people here expect tournament organizers to trust them blindly without having some numbers to back it up, they won't do this. However, unless someone endorses the map who has some tangible number, say '2 GSL trophies' backs the map up and endorses it, that's something tangible.
and this is where the whole "union" idea comes from imo. if you do not trust that group that is to be formed, that don't be part of it.
It's not about if I trust it, it's about the fact that tournament organizers most likely won't trust it and as such nothing will get done by it. Again, I'm not talking about whether or not these people are right, I'm talking about that they need to be able to trust tournament organizers that they are right or tournament organizers won't listen to them.
there is a problem with the way the quote is edited @SiskosGoatee
nobody here claims tournament organizers should follow the council blindly. Yet the fact that map makers from esv and tpw as well as others who are in this community for a while are interested in this discussion proves that it is important. the idea to create an "entity" that draws its legitimacy from a wider basis is crucial, because the means of communication and promotion of custom melee maps was not very successful so far. One positive attempt was NASL who just just trusted TPW and the team provided maps for a season. Was it a success for the game? i do not know, but if there was just more of this, custom mapping would have a chance to develop further, e.g. through more replays.
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
personally i partly blame map makers for not making better maps, but overproducing - too many maps but also too many new concepts lately that are not thought through - that happens to me often enough, too.
one also has to point out that although we are all very happy that MotM happens regularly, players seem to take these maps less serious and do not play the maps to their potential - mainly because they are not yet used to them. and here again it is the lack of map rotation that we can blame, because players are not motivated to practice or adept to new maps!
think about blizzard producing more melee maps and initiating map rotation. suddenly it would be so much easier to introduce custom melee maps.
@SiskosGoatee: i think most people in this thread understood your point by now and i appreciate your long and elaborate posts. yet i have the feeling that we are talking cross-purposes :/
On October 23 2012 20:50 OxyGenesis wrote: Well put Samro.
What I think would be useful to our cause is if we could get a well known SC2 personality to write an article on TL about the benefit of a more regularly rotated map pool. I think ideally day9 would be the perfect candidate as his brood war credentials give his authority more weight but someone like Doa would be great too.
This is something that we could do ourselves but then you run in to the problem of it looking like we only want to further our own agenda. Either way I feel like it would get a lot of attention from the community as it is clearly something that is a hot topic right now.
A combination of larger community support/pressure for new maps, advocacy from well respected SC2 figures and a Mapping council that delivers viable alternatives to the current maps, would, in my opinion, be likely get those that pick the SC2 map pools to make changes to the current system that we have.
My preference for the name of this council is currently the TLMC (Team Liquid Mappers Council) but I am open to alternatives.
not so much interested in names yet, be it for the form of organization or people who we need to get on board. yet i will try to get together a nice writeup of reasons for some form of non-team organisation.
@ SiskosGoatee -- I'm not gonna quote the quote, that's getting messy, and I don't really have much to respond to from that last one (the big quote of my long post), so:
1) You seem to keep getting hung up on MLG, and suggest NASL, and that's fine. I get the reasons for doing so and am fine with that (even though nowhere did I mention MLG). But the way you present it stiill makes it sound like it's not really an option. What I'm saying, and what I meant about the "macro better" things is that this isn't about black and white timings and mechanics, no matter how much you say it is. If the parameters you are dealt don't work for what you are trying to accomplish: Change The Game. That's what we are trying to do in actuality (to a degree), there's no reason not to do it metaphorically. There's always another way -- in this case, there's the option to raise popular opinion somehow even if there isn't (yet) an argument from authority. And that's what I'm arguing that the council should really be focused on, raising general awareness/popular opinon, in order to then influence tournaments, and thus gain/earn authority. So in the end, the council finds it's entry point into what is otherwise a catch 22.
2) I don't really fully accept the argument about risk. While any entertainment medium wants to stick to "what works", part of "what works" is offering something interesting, and quite often offering something interesting involves offering something new. Without any risk, there is no reward and no growth. I don't think static map pools is an item that is so completely entrenched and calculated *in every case* as you seem to keep saying it is. So in some cases, like the NASL as you cede, it would be a good place to *start* to sow the seeds of revolution (rotation, w/e XD, of the map pool). And eventually, if everybody's else is doing it, and everyone is clamoring for it, eventually, MLG too will fall (if they are still casting SC2 at that point >_>).
On October 23 2012 21:36 Samro225am wrote: there is a problem with the way the quote is edited @SiskosGoatee
nobody here claims tournament organizers should follow the council blindly. Yet the fact that map makers from esv and tpw as well as others who are in this community for a while are interested in this discussion proves that it is important. the idea to create an "entity" that draws its legitimacy from a wider basis is crucial, because the means of communication and promotion of custom melee maps was not very successful so far. One positive attempt was NASL who just just trusted TPW and the team provided maps for a season. Was it a success for the game? i do not know, but if there was just more of this, custom mapping would have a chance to develop further, e.g. through more replays.
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
personally i partly blame map makers for not making better maps, but overproducing - too many maps but also too many new concepts lately that are not thought through - that happens to me often enough, too.
one also has to point out that although we are all very happy that MotM happens regularly, players seem to take these maps less serious and do not play the maps to their potential - mainly because they are not yet used to them. and here again it is the lack of map rotation that we can blame, because players are not motivated to practice or adept to new maps!
think about blizzard producing more melee maps and initiating map rotation. suddenly it would be so much easier to introduce custom melee maps.
@SiskosGoatee: i think most people in this thread understood your point by now and i appreciate your long and elaborate posts. yet i have the feeling that we are talking cross-purposes :/
On October 23 2012 20:50 OxyGenesis wrote: Well put Samro.
What I think would be useful to our cause is if we could get a well known SC2 personality to write an article on TL about the benefit of a more regularly rotated map pool. I think ideally day9 would be the perfect candidate as his brood war credentials give his authority more weight but someone like Doa would be great too.
This is something that we could do ourselves but then you run in to the problem of it looking like we only want to further our own agenda. Either way I feel like it would get a lot of attention from the community as it is clearly something that is a hot topic right now.
A combination of larger community support/pressure for new maps, advocacy from well respected SC2 figures and a Mapping council that delivers viable alternatives to the current maps, would, in my opinion, be likely get those that pick the SC2 map pools to make changes to the current system that we have.
My preference for the name of this council is currently the TLMC (Team Liquid Mappers Council) but I am open to alternatives.
not so much interested in names yet, be it for the form of organization or people who we need to get on board. yet i will try to get together a nice writeup of reasons for some form of non-team organisation.
I definitely agree that a lot of the maps produced currently are not 'tournament level' maps, but are rather 'proof of concept' maps. I feel that this is a symptom of our current situation. MotM is currently the highest prestige that a map can realistically get, so people make maps that they feel is of MotM quality.
Going back to my previous comment about the council picking single maps to promote, I feel like this would help with the map quality issue as it could be very tightly quality-controlled. Especially if these maps are going to be promoted to the larger community as 'the maps that the mapping community thinks are better than our current maps'.
It's difficult because it seems like a lot of the best mappers have dwindling interest. If they made a concerted effort to give detailed feedback on maps that they feel are getting close to tournament quality I think that would really help.
On October 23 2012 21:58 OxyGenesis wrote: I definitely agree that a lot of the maps produced currently are not 'tournament level' maps, but are rather 'proof of concept' maps. I feel that this is a symptom of our current situation. MotM is currently the highest prestige that a map can realistically get, so people make maps that they feel is of MotM quality.
Going back to my previous comment about the council picking single maps to promote, I feel like this would help with the map quality issue as it could be very tightly quality-controlled. Especially if these maps are going to be promoted to the larger community as 'the maps that the mapping community thinks are better than our current maps'.
It's difficult because it seems like a lot of the best mappers have dwindling interest. If they made a concerted effort to give detailed feedback on maps that they feel are getting close to tournament quality I think that would really help.
from all your points one could basically derive that the map making scene needs a platform that helps to produce better maps. for reason like legitimacy and openness i would suggest this entity should be community based and not team-related.
motm could be a starting point. what where the maps in motm that were good, but not good enough for top5. did the map makers try to take the feedback from the judges to make their maps better? where are these maps today? if the producer did not try to make the map any better, one had to ask why he did not try! same with top5 maps: did you watch all replays? are you planning to make the map better or do you think it is as best as it can be? is your map ready for the big stage?
and after this whole thing the council comes into play, highlighting maps.
and if you do not trust people to judge maps than go the other way really: map data base, popular vote, tournament organizers pick from there.
don't get me wrong, this is a powerfull and important tool - yet personally i like the council version, because it creates interaction with the public and between map makers and also because the beach map does not take it all in the end
On October 23 2012 21:36 Samro225am wrote: there is a problem with the way the quote is edited @SiskosGoatee
nobody here claims tournament organizers should follow the council blindly. Yet the fact that map makers from esv and tpw as well as others who are in this community for a while are interested in this discussion proves that it is important. the idea to create an "entity" that draws its legitimacy from a wider basis is crucial, because the means of communication and promotion of custom melee maps was not very successful so far. One positive attempt was NASL who just just trusted TPW and the team provided maps for a season. Was it a success for the game? i do not know, but if there was just more of this, custom mapping would have a chance to develop further, e.g. through more replays.
Well, they don't have to trust them blindly, but they have to trust them for this idea to be successful, in how far are they willing to do this?
Mapmakers believe rotating quickly is good for tournaments and for the scene. Tournament organizers disagree, why should they trust people who in their eyes have a conflict of interest?
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
I am not sure I understand the point you are making here or what it is addressed to, please specify.
think about blizzard producing more melee maps and initiating map rotation. suddenly it would be so much easier to introduce custom melee maps.
@SiskosGoatee: i think most people in this thread understood your point by now and i appreciate your long and elaborate posts. yet i have the feeling that we are talking cross-purposes :/
I am quite sure they don't, even last post, you talked about having to convince me while I dove in the mind of TO's, I don't need convincing, they do and I'm not sure you're going to succeed, to get back to the original Tweet timetwister linked.
Look at his mentality, you may argue that it is the wrong way to think for him, but this is how he thinks, this is how businesspeople think. In order to convince him of your ideas that certain maps are bad and swifter rotation is good, you need hard numbers to show him. These are the people you need to convince, you can argue all day long that numbers don't tell everything, but numbers are all they understand and they won't buckle so unless you come with numbers he's not going to change.
You will never convince TO's to change the map pool quicker unless you come with numbers which indicate it is in their best interest, not the interest of the community, but their interest. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about that they hold all the cards and have all the power and that you need to convince them in some way, and this council will not do it because again, they need numbers to be convinced, which this council cannot provide.
On October 23 2012 21:36 Samro225am wrote: there is a problem with the way the quote is edited @SiskosGoatee
nobody here claims tournament organizers should follow the council blindly. Yet the fact that map makers from esv and tpw as well as others who are in this community for a while are interested in this discussion proves that it is important. the idea to create an "entity" that draws its legitimacy from a wider basis is crucial, because the means of communication and promotion of custom melee maps was not very successful so far. One positive attempt was NASL who just just trusted TPW and the team provided maps for a season. Was it a success for the game? i do not know, but if there was just more of this, custom mapping would have a chance to develop further, e.g. through more replays.
Well, they don't have to trust them blindly, but they have to trust them for this idea to be successful, in how far are they willing to do this?
Mapmakers believe rotating quickly is good for tournaments and for the scene. Tournament organizers disagree, why should they trust people who in their eyes have a conflict of interest?
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
I am not sure I understand the point you are making here or what it is addressed to, please specify.
think about blizzard producing more melee maps and initiating map rotation. suddenly it would be so much easier to introduce custom melee maps.
@SiskosGoatee: i think most people in this thread understood your point by now and i appreciate your long and elaborate posts. yet i have the feeling that we are talking cross-purposes :/
I am quite sure they don't, even last post, you talked about having to convince me while I dove in the mind of TO's, I don't need convincing, they do and I'm not sure you're going to succeed, to get back to the original Tweet timetwister linked.
Look at his mentality, you may argue that it is the wrong way to think for him, but this is how he thinks, this is how businesspeople think. In order to convince him of your ideas that certain maps are bad and swifter rotation is good, you need hard numbers to show him. These are the people you need to convince, you can argue all day long that numbers don't tell everything, but numbers are all they understand and they won't buckle so unless you come with numbers he's not going to change.
You will never convince TO's to change the map pool quicker unless you come with numbers which indicate it is in their best interest, not the interest of the community, but their interest. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about that they hold all the cards and have all the power and that you need to convince them in some way, and this council will not do it because again, they need numbers to be convinced, which this council cannot provide.
1. I stated that i think right now there are not enough maps that are ready for rotation, yet more rotation in general would be good for the game (entertainment) and players had a higher interest to play new maps (adept quicker). this would imporve map quality long term. you just cannot have numbers without games and you do not get better maps without things like NASL's TPW partnership experiment or TLMC/MotM.
2. I stated that the NASL-TPW partnership was interesting, but not perfect - yet it is a prove of concept: leagues already have put trust in map teams and are interested in more maps. map making community yet has to step up its game. Why do you say it is a problem. either we succedd in changing something or we don't. should we not at least try?
3. I stated that there is a problematic clash of conflict and that i do not see the map makers /mapping teams being the head of such a council. Also I do not see the council as the ultimate solution.
4. I have no idea what your motivation is to post in here when you do not agree to most ideas presented in this thread. it seems like most of the time you are busy proving someone else wrong and i have the feeling this could kill all positive discussion long term.
I feel like you quote my statement and put them in another context by generalizing. reading your last posts again feels like you see a situation that is you (who understands what is going on) vs. the other who you want to prove wrong only because they demand something from tournamnets what you think they will not get.
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
I am not sure I understand the point you are making here or what it is addressed to, please specify.
unsure what there is left to be specified?
Astro Haze was chosen as Top5 in the last motm. Replays helped me a lot more than many map makers' feedback, because players just wanted to play, instead of proving where my concept was not good enough. by watching them playing i understood what could be changed. also they where not in a testing environment but played in order to win.
does that help?
(hi barrin, sorry for double post, but these quotesinquotes make me sick)
On October 23 2012 21:36 Samro225am wrote: there is a problem with the way the quote is edited @SiskosGoatee
nobody here claims tournament organizers should follow the council blindly. Yet the fact that map makers from esv and tpw as well as others who are in this community for a while are interested in this discussion proves that it is important. the idea to create an "entity" that draws its legitimacy from a wider basis is crucial, because the means of communication and promotion of custom melee maps was not very successful so far. One positive attempt was NASL who just just trusted TPW and the team provided maps for a season. Was it a success for the game? i do not know, but if there was just more of this, custom mapping would have a chance to develop further, e.g. through more replays.
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
personally i partly blame map makers for not making better maps, but overproducing - too many maps but also too many new concepts lately that are not thought through - that happens to me often enough, too.
one also has to point out that although we are all very happy that MotM happens regularly, players seem to take these maps less serious and do not play the maps to their potential - mainly because they are not yet used to them. and here again it is the lack of map rotation that we can blame, because players are not motivated to practice or adept to new maps!
think about blizzard producing more melee maps and initiating map rotation. suddenly it would be so much easier to introduce custom melee maps.
@SiskosGoatee: i think most people in this thread understood your point by now and i appreciate your long and elaborate posts. yet i have the feeling that we are talking cross-purposes :/
On October 23 2012 20:50 OxyGenesis wrote: Well put Samro.
What I think would be useful to our cause is if we could get a well known SC2 personality to write an article on TL about the benefit of a more regularly rotated map pool. I think ideally day9 would be the perfect candidate as his brood war credentials give his authority more weight but someone like Doa would be great too.
This is something that we could do ourselves but then you run in to the problem of it looking like we only want to further our own agenda. Either way I feel like it would get a lot of attention from the community as it is clearly something that is a hot topic right now.
A combination of larger community support/pressure for new maps, advocacy from well respected SC2 figures and a Mapping council that delivers viable alternatives to the current maps, would, in my opinion, be likely get those that pick the SC2 map pools to make changes to the current system that we have.
My preference for the name of this council is currently the TLMC (Team Liquid Mappers Council) but I am open to alternatives.
not so much interested in names yet, be it for the form of organization or people who we need to get on board. yet i will try to get together a nice writeup of reasons for some form of non-team organisation.
I definitely agree that a lot of the maps produced currently are not 'tournament level' maps, but are rather 'proof of concept' maps. I feel that this is a symptom of our current situation. MotM is currently the highest prestige that a map can realistically get, so people make maps that they feel is of MotM quality.
Going back to my previous comment about the council picking single maps to promote, I feel like this would help with the map quality issue as it could be very tightly quality-controlled. Especially if these maps are going to be promoted to the larger community as 'the maps that the mapping community thinks are better than our current maps'.
It's difficult because it seems like a lot of the best mappers have dwindling interest. If they made a concerted effort to give detailed feedback on maps that they feel are getting close to tournament quality I think that would really help.
I suggest the question of "whether there is an over-production of maps and what can/should be done about it" be brought up in a new thread. I think it is ultimately irrelevant in itself to the discussion of the advocacy group, or any alternative ideas to such a group, and what it can/should do. While it may be tangentially relevant, such as to whether its a symptom of the problem, or a demonstration of a point upon which the community does not agree, it is hard to enough to shake off one blinding tangent...
@ SiskosGoatee -- okay, enough with the MLG and Sundance... seriously, if MLG won't budge, then so be it, we can tackle this beast from another angle. Fk'em (for now...) But also, you can't mean to tell me you believe that all TO's think exactly alike. If MLG, or whoever is the red-headed stepchild, we'll spank them last. XD But to hammer this home over and over is really starting to be unproductive when there are still viable lines of dicussion of to play out. You really ought to highlight your suggestions (or support for current suggestions) on how to get *around* the problem than reiterating the warning yet again -- I really think we've gotten it. (that said you have nearly single-handedly been keep this thread popular XD)
On October 23 2012 21:36 Samro225am wrote: there is a problem with the way the quote is edited @SiskosGoatee
nobody here claims tournament organizers should follow the council blindly. Yet the fact that map makers from esv and tpw as well as others who are in this community for a while are interested in this discussion proves that it is important. the idea to create an "entity" that draws its legitimacy from a wider basis is crucial, because the means of communication and promotion of custom melee maps was not very successful so far. One positive attempt was NASL who just just trusted TPW and the team provided maps for a season. Was it a success for the game? i do not know, but if there was just more of this, custom mapping would have a chance to develop further, e.g. through more replays.
Well, they don't have to trust them blindly, but they have to trust them for this idea to be successful, in how far are they willing to do this?
Mapmakers believe rotating quickly is good for tournaments and for the scene. Tournament organizers disagree, why should they trust people who in their eyes have a conflict of interest?
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
I am not sure I understand the point you are making here or what it is addressed to, please specify.
think about blizzard producing more melee maps and initiating map rotation. suddenly it would be so much easier to introduce custom melee maps.
@SiskosGoatee: i think most people in this thread understood your point by now and i appreciate your long and elaborate posts. yet i have the feeling that we are talking cross-purposes :/
I am quite sure they don't, even last post, you talked about having to convince me while I dove in the mind of TO's, I don't need convincing, they do and I'm not sure you're going to succeed, to get back to the original Tweet timetwister linked.
Look at his mentality, you may argue that it is the wrong way to think for him, but this is how he thinks, this is how businesspeople think. In order to convince him of your ideas that certain maps are bad and swifter rotation is good, you need hard numbers to show him. These are the people you need to convince, you can argue all day long that numbers don't tell everything, but numbers are all they understand and they won't buckle so unless you come with numbers he's not going to change.
You will never convince TO's to change the map pool quicker unless you come with numbers which indicate it is in their best interest, not the interest of the community, but their interest. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about that they hold all the cards and have all the power and that you need to convince them in some way, and this council will not do it because again, they need numbers to be convinced, which this council cannot provide.
1. I stated that i think right now there are not enough maps that are ready for rotation, yet more rotation in general would be good for the game (entertainment) and players had a higher interest to play new maps (adept quicker). this would imporve map quality long term.
I believe that, you believe that, can be prove it to TO's? Again, it's not about who is right, they hold all the cards and we have to convince them.
you just cannot have numbers without games and you do not get better maps without things like NASL's TPW partnership experiment or TLMC/MotM.
Indeed, this is the 'circular' part of it what makes it so difficult, they aern't willing toa dd maps which aren't proven, you can't prove maps without them adding them, pretty unfortunate.
2. I stated that the NASL-TPW partnership was interesting, but not perfect - yet it is a prove of concept: leagues already have put trust in map teams and are interested in more maps. map making community yet has to step up its game. Why do you say it is a problem. either we succedd in changing something or we don't. should we not at least try?
I feel that efforts are best directed at something with a higher chance of success. I do not believe the council/union is the optimal form. Rather, someone, say Diamond, has to approach NASL directly to either get maps into the pool without the council which I do not think adds any swaying power at all. Or to try the segment where they host showmatches on unknown maps. Similar to Doa's Carthography, but more high profile and better players.
3. I stated that there is a problematic clash of conflict and that i do not see the map makers /mapping teams being the head of such a council. Also I do not see the council as the ultimate solution.
I personally don't think the council adds anything and mapping teams basically need to be more active. However I do think that a melee mapping community could perhaps be made which is more than a subforum on TL which gives spotlight to exceptional maps as well as just in general content and interviews with good mapmakers about the ins and outs of it as well as offering tutorials and that kind of stuff to bring melee mapping to more attention.
4. I have no idea what your motivation is to post in here when you do not agree to most ideas presented in this thread. it seems like most of the time you are busy proving someone else wrong and i have the feeling this could kill all positive discussion long term.
Proving ideas wrong for the most part is what happens if what people want to achieve is very hard and almost impossible to achieve. If it were easy to achieve it would've been done already, the reason that most ideas have a hole in it, I believe, is because it's just a very hard thing to achieve.
Again, it might not be in tournament's best interests to quickly rotate maps.
I feel like you quote my statement and put them in another context by generalizing. reading your last posts again feels like you see a situation that is you (who understands what is going on) vs. the other who you want to prove wrong only because they demand something from tournamnets what you think they will not get.
this leads nowhere.
There's not a lot to go to. Like I said, I believe that the things people want to achieve are very, very difficult to achieve. You can think 'Hey, I want to achieve this, how can I do this?' but the truth of the matter is that many things are very hard to achieve. I want world peace, any idea I have to get there will ultimately have huge flaws in it because world piece is pretty darn hard to achieve. I do believe there are a lot of flaws in most ideas presented, which stems from a very large part from a, I believe mistaken, belief that tournament organizers do not know what they are doing.
I still believe that the NASL segment is the best shot there is at the moment.
On October 23 2012 23:29 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: @ SiskosGoatee -- okay, enough with the MLG and Sundance... seriously, if MLG won't budge, then so be it, we can tackle this beast from another angle. Fk'em (for now...) But also, you can't mean to tell me you believe that all TO's think exactly alike. If MLG, or whoever is the red-headed stepchild, we'll spank them last. XD But to hammer this home over and over is really starting to be unproductive when there are still viable lines of dicussion of to play out. You really ought to highlight your suggestions (or support for current suggestions) on how to get *around* the problem than reiterating the warning yet again -- I really think we've gotten it. (that said you have nearly single-handedly been keep this thread popular XD)
It's an example of a TO whose view is clearly documented. I do think most if not all think like that since that's the way you make something big, you don't follow your heart, you follow numbers, numbers don't lie.
However, as I said, long tournaments will be more likely than short tournaments to add new maps, so NASL is our best hope I feel since GSL is clearly out of reach.
On October 23 2012 21:36 Samro225am wrote: there is a problem with the way the quote is edited @SiskosGoatee
nobody here claims tournament organizers should follow the council blindly. Yet the fact that map makers from esv and tpw as well as others who are in this community for a while are interested in this discussion proves that it is important. the idea to create an "entity" that draws its legitimacy from a wider basis is crucial, because the means of communication and promotion of custom melee maps was not very successful so far. One positive attempt was NASL who just just trusted TPW and the team provided maps for a season. Was it a success for the game? i do not know, but if there was just more of this, custom mapping would have a chance to develop further, e.g. through more replays.
Well, they don't have to trust them blindly, but they have to trust them for this idea to be successful, in how far are they willing to do this?
Mapmakers believe rotating quickly is good for tournaments and for the scene. Tournament organizers disagree, why should they trust people who in their eyes have a conflict of interest?
from my perspective I can assure you replays from any random game can tell you so much more than specific map tests. because players (in the replay) do not care about giving feedback, they play a straight forward game and want to compete and win in the end. in this MotM i could easily understand where my map and the idea for a wider centre and hence more possible attack paths failed and where it worked just fine. right now i am in the process of evaluating certain changes that i was able to come up not by specific feedback, but by a few games. sure players also have to adept to a new aspect in a map, but you have to help them and make the map's concept clear enough basically. my point here is: mappers can do better, and they need the help from non-mappers which again needs better promotion and more play-time.
I am not sure I understand the point you are making here or what it is addressed to, please specify.
think about blizzard producing more melee maps and initiating map rotation. suddenly it would be so much easier to introduce custom melee maps.
@SiskosGoatee: i think most people in this thread understood your point by now and i appreciate your long and elaborate posts. yet i have the feeling that we are talking cross-purposes :/
I am quite sure they don't, even last post, you talked about having to convince me while I dove in the mind of TO's, I don't need convincing, they do and I'm not sure you're going to succeed, to get back to the original Tweet timetwister linked.
Look at his mentality, you may argue that it is the wrong way to think for him, but this is how he thinks, this is how businesspeople think. In order to convince him of your ideas that certain maps are bad and swifter rotation is good, you need hard numbers to show him. These are the people you need to convince, you can argue all day long that numbers don't tell everything, but numbers are all they understand and they won't buckle so unless you come with numbers he's not going to change.
You will never convince TO's to change the map pool quicker unless you come with numbers which indicate it is in their best interest, not the interest of the community, but their interest. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about that they hold all the cards and have all the power and that you need to convince them in some way, and this council will not do it because again, they need numbers to be convinced, which this council cannot provide.
1. I stated that i think right now there are not enough maps that are ready for rotation, yet more rotation in general would be good for the game (entertainment) and players had a higher interest to play new maps (adept quicker). this would imporve map quality long term.
I believe that, you believe that, can be prove it to TO's? Again, it's not about who is right, they hold all the cards and we have to convince them.
you just cannot have numbers without games and you do not get better maps without things like NASL's TPW partnership experiment or TLMC/MotM.
Indeed, this is the 'circular' part of it what makes it so difficult, they aern't willing toa dd maps which aren't proven, you can't prove maps without them adding them, pretty unfortunate.
2. I stated that the NASL-TPW partnership was interesting, but not perfect - yet it is a prove of concept: leagues already have put trust in map teams and are interested in more maps. map making community yet has to step up its game. Why do you say it is a problem. either we succedd in changing something or we don't. should we not at least try?
I feel that efforts are best directed at something with a higher chance of success. I do not believe the council/union is the optimal form. Rather, someone, say Diamond, has to approach NASL directly to either get maps into the pool without the council which I do not think adds any swaying power at all. Or to try the segment where they host showmatches on unknown maps. Similar to Doa's Carthography, but more high profile and better players.
3. I stated that there is a problematic clash of conflict and that i do not see the map makers /mapping teams being the head of such a council. Also I do not see the council as the ultimate solution.
I personally don't think the council adds anything and mapping teams basically need to be more active. However I do think that a melee mapping community could perhaps be made which is more than a subforum on TL which gives spotlight to exceptional maps as well as just in general content and interviews with good mapmakers about the ins and outs of it as well as offering tutorials and that kind of stuff to bring melee mapping to more attention.
4. I have no idea what your motivation is to post in here when you do not agree to most ideas presented in this thread. it seems like most of the time you are busy proving someone else wrong and i have the feeling this could kill all positive discussion long term.
Proving ideas wrong for the most part is what happens if what people want to achieve is very hard and almost impossible to achieve. If it were easy to achieve it would've been done already, the reason that most ideas have a hole in it, I believe, is because it's just a very hard thing to achieve.
Again, it might not be in tournament's best interests to quickly rotate maps.
I feel like you quote my statement and put them in another context by generalizing. reading your last posts again feels like you see a situation that is you (who understands what is going on) vs. the other who you want to prove wrong only because they demand something from tournamnets what you think they will not get.
this leads nowhere.
There's not a lot to go to. Like I said, I believe that the things people want to achieve are very, very difficult to achieve. You can think 'Hey, I want to achieve this, how can I do this?' but the truth of the matter is that many things are very hard to achieve. I want world peace, any idea I have to get there will ultimately have huge flaws in it because world piece is pretty darn hard to achieve. I do believe there are a lot of flaws in most ideas presented, which stems from a very large part from a, I believe mistaken, belief that tournament organizers do not know what they are doing.
I still believe that the NASL segment is the best shot there is at the moment.
On October 23 2012 23:29 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: @ SiskosGoatee -- okay, enough with the MLG and Sundance... seriously, if MLG won't budge, then so be it, we can tackle this beast from another angle. Fk'em (for now...) But also, you can't mean to tell me you believe that all TO's think exactly alike. If MLG, or whoever is the red-headed stepchild, we'll spank them last. XD But to hammer this home over and over is really starting to be unproductive when there are still viable lines of dicussion of to play out. You really ought to highlight your suggestions (or support for current suggestions) on how to get *around* the problem than reiterating the warning yet again -- I really think we've gotten it. (that said you have nearly single-handedly been keep this thread popular XD)
It's an example of a TO whose view is clearly documented. I do think most if not all think like that since that's the way you make something big, you don't follow your heart, you follow numbers, numbers don't lie.
However, as I said, long tournaments will be more likely than short tournaments to add new maps, so NASL is our best hope I feel since GSL is clearly out of reach.
On October 23 2012 23:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: I feel that efforts are best directed at something with a higher chance of success. I do not believe the council/union is the optimal form. Rather, someone, say Diamond, has to approach NASL directly to either get maps into the pool without the council which I do not think adds any swaying power at all. Or to try the segment where they host showmatches on unknown maps. Similar to Doa's Carthography, but more high profile and better players.
why should Diamond care for a wider group of map makers? he has his own agenda. also why should map makers make themselves more dependent on one single person, when every map maker who is interested could deligate his energy to a board he has trust in?
3. I stated that there is a problematic clash of conflict and that i do not see the map makers /mapping teams being the head of such a council. Also I do not see the council as the ultimate solution.
I personally don't think the council adds anything and mapping teams basically need to be more active. However I do think that a melee mapping community could perhaps be made which is more than a subforum on TL which gives spotlight to exceptional maps as well as just in general content and interviews with good mapmakers about the ins and outs of it as well as offering tutorials and that kind of stuff to bring melee mapping to more attention.
teams have a number of problems. they depend on inner-team dynamics, they cannot speak for bigger parts of the community and most importantly they do not have a wider legitimacy beside promoting themselves. there actually is quite a collision of interests, even within teams, because a team would have to promote maps from everybody in the team and say that the maps are great (Diamond's approach, at least what was seen publicly).
a board could pic 0 to 10 maps every few month, say three times a year probably, and suggest their use. such a board is more legit than a team because it is on a bigger level and gets the support from bigger chunks of the community hopefully.
if you cannot agree on these two points I guess you have no reason to support this idea and i would like to ask for your motivation to post here. maybe after reality proved us wrong you want to say you knew it from the start?
On October 23 2012 23:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: I feel that efforts are best directed at something with a higher chance of success. I do not believe the council/union is the optimal form. Rather, someone, say Diamond, has to approach NASL directly to either get maps into the pool without the council which I do not think adds any swaying power at all. Or to try the segment where they host showmatches on unknown maps. Similar to Doa's Carthography, but more high profile and better players.
why should Diamond care for a wider group of map makers?
He shouldn't, but he obviously does care deeply about the entire mapmaking scene and he's notable and an active member of the community. so he's a good shot.
he has his own agenda. also why should map makers make themselves more dependent on one single person, when every map maker who is interested could deligate his energy to a board he has trust in?
He just needs tog et the ball rolling and open collaborate with them to get the segment going, that's it, after that the segment exists.
teams have a number of problems. they depend on inner-team dynamics, they cannot speak for bigger parts of the community and most importantly they do not have a wider legitimacy beside promoting themselves. there actually is quite a collision of interests, even within teams, because a team would have to promote maps from everybody in the team and say that the maps are great (Diamond's approach, at least what was seen publicly).
That's why all teams need to promote themselves. Council members will also end up being part of teams in the end so it does not alleviate the problem or what function the Council serves because:
- It is already established that the mapmaking community is not unified in its consideration of what maps are good, therefore, the council does not speak for the mapmaking community as a unified voice, they may claim they do, but other parties will find it hard to consider it as such. - The first obstacle to overcome is to convince tournament organizers that map pools need to rotate and be fresh, something a council structure has no impact on.
if you cannot agree on these two points I guess you have no reason to support this idea and i would like to ask for your motivation to post here. maybe after reality proved us wrong you want to say you knew it from the start?
Well, like I said, I believe that the effort of the council could best be directed not at convincing tournaments to update the map pool but rather organize things like the hypothetical NASL segments. Because I doubt the former will be a success, the latter is a more realistic goal I feel.
I mean, I want to see games being played on new and fresh maps and I believe that doing it like this gives the highest probability of success.
On October 23 2012 23:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: I feel that efforts are best directed at something with a higher chance of success. I do not believe the council/union is the optimal form. Rather, someone, say Diamond, has to approach NASL directly to either get maps into the pool without the council which I do not think adds any swaying power at all. Or to try the segment where they host showmatches on unknown maps. Similar to Doa's Carthography, but more high profile and better players.
why should Diamond care for a wider group of map makers?
He shouldn't, but he obviously does care deeply about the entire mapmaking scene and he's notable and an active member of the community. so he's a good shot.
he has his own agenda. also why should map makers make themselves more dependent on one single person, when every map maker who is interested could deligate his energy to a board he has trust in?
He just needs tog et the ball rolling and open collaborate with them to get the segment going, that's it, after that the segment exists.
teams have a number of problems. they depend on inner-team dynamics, they cannot speak for bigger parts of the community and most importantly they do not have a wider legitimacy beside promoting themselves. there actually is quite a collision of interests, even within teams, because a team would have to promote maps from everybody in the team and say that the maps are great (Diamond's approach, at least what was seen publicly).
That's why all teams need to promote themselves. Council members will also end up being part of teams in the end so it does not alleviate the problem or what function the Council serves because:
- It is already established that the mapmaking community is not unified in its consideration of what maps are good, therefore, the council does not speak for the mapmaking community as a unified voice, they may claim they do, but other parties will find it hard to consider it as such. - The first obstacle to overcome is to convince tournament organizers that map pools need to rotate and be fresh, something a council structure has no impact on.
if you cannot agree on these two points I guess you have no reason to support this idea and i would like to ask for your motivation to post here. maybe after reality proved us wrong you want to say you knew it from the start?
Well, like I said, I believe that the effort of the council could best be directed not at convincing tournaments to update the map pool but rather organize things like the hypothetical NASL segments. Because I doubt the former will be a success, the latter is a more realistic goal I feel.
I mean, I want to see games being played on new and fresh maps and I believe that doing it like this gives the highest probability of success.
What you suggest is what we've been trying to do from the beginning. It isn't working so we are trying a different approach based around community. It will be difficult, we know this. Please stop saying the same things over and over in every post, it is getting quite frustrating to read.
On October 23 2012 22:29 SiskosGoatee wrote: In order to convince him of your ideas that certain maps are bad and swifter rotation is good, you need hard numbers to show him.
Providing numbers proving that different maps will lead to higher viewership is very hard to do. First you need a major established tournament that already has lots of data on their viewership with the old map pool. Then you need them to commit to rotating their map pool and collect extensive data on the viewership after the change. Once you get that to happen there are major technical impediments to making a good argument, for instance, it depends on what else is going on at the time and not just other e-sports tournaments, what players are in the tournament, who is casting etc. Because there are all these variables you would need extensive data that varied all of these factors to truly isolate the effect of changing the map pool.
In summary you need to make the change in the map pool and gather data over several tournaments to prove statistically that it works. By that time it should be fairly obvious whether people like it or not and statistics are no longer necessary.
Did Apple gather statistical evidence that the Iphone would be successful or did they just make it? When you are being innovative there is nothing for you to look at as your model. You just need to have balls and go for it.
On October 24 2012 01:00 MarcusRife wrote: Did Apple gather statistical evidence that the Iphone would be successful or did they just make it? When you are being innovative there is nothing for you to look at as your model. You just need to have balls and go for it.
This. It doesn't matter what would be ideal and what might not work. We can either try or not try. Still planning to talk about map selection at some point, but I want to tie it to a concrete plan which I am formulating.
On October 24 2012 01:00 MarcusRife wrote: Did Apple gather statistical evidence that the Iphone would be successful or did they just make it? When you are being innovative there is nothing for you to look at as your model. You just need to have balls and go for it.
This. It doesn't matter what would be ideal and what might not work. We can either try or not try. Still planning to talk about map selection at some point, but I want to tie it to a concrete plan which I am formulating.
You mean "Do, or Do Not, there is no Try."
sry, had to be done. >.<
@ SiskosGoatee -- I do not really see why it is difficult to envision some kind of representative group that will relatively speak for all of us. Just a random showing, you, me, EatThePath, Barrin, Monitor, Samro, and Plexa/Nighmarjoo for the sake of argument. I don't know if I got a representative from all the teams but that was my intention. Anyway, you grab a representative of each team, a random independant or two, a TL mod and/or legacy mapmaker, maybe even a player or a caster ot both, some group that represents a wide stripe of the plural opinion. I think that if a group like this were to put their heads together and differences aside to rally behind a more or less common goal, it lends credence to the recommendations of the group rather than hesitation about their motives. In that way, TPW still needs to lobby specifically for their maps, ESV theirs, etc.
Now the reason why I think a "dream team" of this sort might be better than say simply letting everyone just keep fending for themselves without such a council is that the status quo, as has been mentioned, isn't really working, and a more or less unified voice has a way of reach out to more people. It also gives something that all of us can get behind in a more formalized way. Whether or not the specific ideal form of this has been mentioned thus far, can you not see at all a way in which this could be useful?
I think what exactly it will be used for is still up for debate, but I can see at least *a way* that it could work.
On October 24 2012 01:00 MarcusRife wrote: Did Apple gather statistical evidence that the Iphone would be successful or did they just make it? When you are being innovative there is nothing for you to look at as your model. You just need to have balls and go for it.
This. It doesn't matter what would be ideal and what might not work. We can either try or not try. Still planning to talk about map selection at some point, but I want to tie it to a concrete plan which I am formulating.
Apple had data in the form of Blackberry acquiring its fond nickname, the "Crackberry", on top of sales metrics from these potential competitors such as Blackberry's maker, RIM. It's not hard to hypothesize "if smartphone owners really love their smartphones, and if we create a smartphone that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful". Apple has always introduced products that fall under one of three categories:
1. Up and coming market that shows a lot of promise 2. Established market that shows viability, but resting on its laurels 3. Established market that has not yet made big waves in selling to consumers
As examples, the Lisa and Macintosh would fall under category 1, the iPod and iPhone would fall under category 2, while the iPad would fall under category 3. The iPad is most certainly not the first tablet computer to have seen the light of day; previous attempts by companies like Microsoft to sell tablets to consumers ended up flopping. You can blame it on the interface (stylus), "the technology just wasn't there yet", whatever you want, but tablets did have a steady market in the business sector. While everyone abandoned tablets for consumers for this reason, Apple took another look at it. We're talking late 90's, early 2000's. The concept for the iPad actually came before the iPhone; the iPhone is a by-product of the design process undergone in creating the iPad. Steve Jobs realized they were onto something, said "let's make a phone" while realizing that targeting a successful consumer market had a better chance than going after the consumer failure first, and shelved the iPad until the iPhone proved the design to be a success.
That said, there's been way too much conversation about business decisions and what-not for me to really try and get back into the discussion, but I did want to address this pretty obvious lack of understanding in business mentality, particularly Apple's business mentality (which I follow quite closely, owning pretty much Apple products exclusively these days). I think that tweet snapshot between Sundance and Timetwister summarized quite well the reality -- namely the disconnect -- between tournament organizers and mapmakers.
Apple had data in the form of Blackberry acquiring its fond nickname, the "Crackberry", on top of sales metrics from these potential competitors such as Blackberry's maker, RIM. It's not hard to hypothesize "if smartphone owners really love their smartphones, and if we create a smartphone that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful". Apple has always introduced products that fall under one of three categories:
I was making an analogy and they are never perfect.
I think what I was trying to say has been misunderstood, so let me clarify. Obviously Apple had good reasons to believe that their product was going to be successful but I don't think those reasons were statistical in nature. I will use caustic's template to show how Sundance should maybe think about this, taking an innovators mindset, to respond to the points about numerically proving new maps will do good things.
If fans of starcraft really love watching games, and we create a tournament that introduces new maps that make games more dynamic and interesting that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful.
Apple had data in the form of Blackberry acquiring its fond nickname, the "Crackberry", on top of sales metrics from these potential competitors such as Blackberry's maker, RIM. It's not hard to hypothesize "if smartphone owners really love their smartphones, and if we create a smartphone that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful". Apple has always introduced products that fall under one of three categories:
I was making an analogy and they are never perfect.
I think what I was trying to say has been misunderstood, so let me clarify. Obviously Apple had good reasons to believe that their product was going to be successful but I don't think those reasons were statistical in nature. I will use caustic's template to show how Sundance should maybe think about this, taking an innovators mindset, to respond to the points about numerically proving new maps will do good things.
If fans of starcraft really love watching games, and we create a tournament that introduces new maps that make games more dynamic and interesting that blows all others out of the water, this has great potential to be successful.
Not completely wrong, but the key is doing the legwork and showing businessmen like Sundance how and why that will result in more eyeballs and more revenue. So far all the data has pointed to making sure that the absolute best players are participating in your tournament if you want people watching.
This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
On that note, I'm incredibly happy to see more and more posts from the general community talking about the stale map pool, because that makes it a relevant and appealing pitch to tournaments, and one I've been using in my limited discussions with them*. If public perception shifts toward desiring a map pool that's consistently refreshed on a reasonable basis, tournaments will warm up to the idea.
* Don't expect too much out of this statement. I'm by no means attempting to be an advocate for the mapmaking scene as a whole. I'm hardly qualified, and even if I was, I wouldn't attempt it without general community approval. Also, keyword is "limited".
On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant.
Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up.
I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish.
I have a question about this. I made some maps, most were fairly bad. Would this "union" accept my maps, or is it only maps made by members of the "union."
Simply put, is this something you have to join, or is this something you submit maps to and they will promote them if they like them?
@mono: I don't think anyone wants it to be membership based. They wouldn't discriminate between maps other than on merit. Of course that is a tricky issue itself. But it would not be exclusive in any way. I think the opposite is the goal.
@Marcus: the reason is "if it's not broken, don't fix it". The tournament map pool dynamic, including all segment of the community, is the result of complacency. Since Mr. Chae is the only one with the backbone to introduce new non-Blizzard maps, there is little incentive for others to "gamble", since they can use those new maps if they want and there's no big downside to being behind the curve on map rotation.
The universal adoption of the new Blizzard maps is a flat contradiction of that mindset, though. Blizzard is known to make questionable maps. They feel comfortable selecting from them, though. Why not select maps from other sources? Same answer, don't rock the boat, complacency. (That is not a judgement, just an explanation.) As caustic said, the focus remains on the main point: headline players for headline games.
-----------
The tournaments that tried to use new maps did so out of the conviction, like ours, that it's the best for the game, including its spectator value. This is why I've had little patience with the "we need to convince them better" argument, which I guess only applies to MLG? I don't see how that's going to work. It would be based on numbers, not vehemence or insight. So in any case you need to get the community behind it. It's the same thing said two different ways.
On October 24 2012 05:56 Monochromatic wrote: I have a question about this. I made some maps, most were fairly bad. Would this "union" accept my maps, or is it only maps made by members of the "union."
Simply put, is this something you have to join, or is this something you submit maps to and they will promote them if they like them?
don't get caught with the name. it does not have to be a union and it is unclear if there is anything like being a member or not. i am critical of such a thing, because the it was like a big and bad team in the end.
there are no clear strategies so far and most can be discussed, so feel free to share your ideas.
the way i see it the "council" shout be the organ for the melee map making scene here and regularly highlight the best maps produced. it is unclear if this council could be an expert group, an elected group, map maker/producer directed "voice" or just a promoter of a public voted best map list.
On October 24 2012 05:56 Monochromatic wrote: I have a question about this. I made some maps, most were fairly bad. Would this "union" accept my maps, or is it only maps made by members of the "union."
Simply put, is this something you have to join, or is this something you submit maps to and they will promote them if they like them?
don't get caught with the name. it does not have to be a union and it is unclear if there is anything like being a member or not. i am critical of such a thing, because the it was like a big and bad team in the end.
there are no clear strategies so far and most can be discussed, so feel free to share your ideas.
the way i see it the "council" shout be the organ for the melee map making scene here and regularly highlight the best maps produced. it is unclear if this council could be an expert group, an elected group, map maker/producer directed "voice" or just a promoter of a public voted best map list.
On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant.
Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up.
I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish.
To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be.
Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work.
Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months.
In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working.
On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant.
Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up.
I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish.
To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be.+ Show Spoiler +
Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work.
Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months.
In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working.
you are right, the current map pool is fairly balanced. lets just stop producing more maps. strange attitude. i mean i see where you are coming from, but what would be your starting point to make things "better"? do you have any ideas or wishes?
and a general problem i have with your critique:
empirical evidence
is just impossible in this case.
so as a first step tp get productive again: could just everybody focus on making better maps? i mean, this is the only thing i feel i could try to do right now...
and as a second step and getting back at
nice exercise for you: explain why
which actually is a good idea:
Please write (yes, YOU, everybody!) what map should be in the map pool instead of map x and why. If you think such a map is not yet produced, than say what features this map should have.
in such a process, people would stand up for someone else's map and say "I support map X, it should be in the mappool instead of map y, because...". this would lead to a more elaborated critique and no more "i know what the mappool should be like-fuck blizzard attitude" . I mean, just to get a picture what people here think.
only thinking about a structure surely gets us nowhere. but saying all ideas are doomed, when peopl try to get somethig going doesn't help either.
Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale.
i do not see where this would differ from most believes. what we need is a bit more better maps to create more visibility and slowly initiate more(!) and regular map rotation with hopefully very similar map pools
On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant.
Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up.
I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish.
To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be.
Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work.
Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months.
In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working.
Why do I argue with you, that is the real question. We don't actually disagree on anything substantial. But I must. ><
I think map teams were primarily for making better maps in inception. Crux can't be compared because it's just a wrapper for the 2-3 guys that Mr. Chae tapped prior to even beginning GSL to make maps (following the BW model). This is somewhat like Diamond putting together the ESV map team. Promoting map rotation is a natural extension for the mapping community because we're passionate about maps, but it should never have fallen to us. I don't think any mapmakers should be blamed when literally every other segment of the SC2 scene could and should have been putting in as much or more effort. We need more people like Morrow, for example.
That said, you're entirely right that a campaign of metered persuasion and raising popular and professional support would be better than anything yet attempted.
samro- and a general problem i have with your critique:
Yes, but that is acknowledged in the need for propounding the qualitative reasons why new maps should be used. The evidence for a particular map would be enthusiasm for it displayed by the community. As an aside, I totally agree with you that it'd be pretty easy to reach a consensus amongst mappers for satisfactory maps to remove and a small group of candidates to put in.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: you are right, the current map pool is fairly balanced. lets just stop producing more maps. strange attitude. i mean i see where you are coming from, but what would be your starting point to make things "better"? do you have any ideas or wishes?
Read the post you're replying to more fully? Not sure how else to respond to this question.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: and a general problem i have with your critique:
You might note I say this in my post immediately after:
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic.
Its impossibility is the point I'm trying to get across. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: Please write (yes, YOU, everybody!) what map should be in the map pool instead of map x and why. If you think such a map is not yet produced, than say what features this map should have.
in such a process, people would stand up for someone else's map and say "I support map X, it should be in the mappool instead of map y, because...". this would lead to a more elaborated critique and no more "i know what the mappool should be like-fuck blizzard attitude" . I mean, just to get a picture what people here think.
only thinking about a structure surely gets us nowhere. but saying all ideas are doomed, when peopl try to get somethig going doesn't help either.
Wrong. You didn't seem to take anything away from the post you're responding to, or at best, excruciatingly cherry-picked quotes you wanted to respond to far out of their original context and intent.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: i do not see where this would differ from most believes. what we need is a bit more better maps to create more visibility and slowly initiate more(!) and regular map rotation with hopefully very similar map pools
Just making good maps, posting them on a barely viewed sub-forum on a community site, and hoping they get noticed by businesses doesn't create more visibility. If it did, the mapmaking community wouldn't be thinking up ideas like unions to improve the situation. It's also not up to us to initiate more/consistent map rotation in tournaments. That's up to the tournaments. The best we can do is make a solid case why such a thing is beneficial to them; I talk about this in my last post.
samro- and a general problem i have with your critique:
empirical evidence
is just impossible in this case.
Yes, but that is acknowledged in the need for propounding the qualitative reasons why new maps should be used. The evidence for a particular map would be enthusiasm for it displayed by the community.
We could have more interesting 2p maps than cross-only 4p maps or even worse 4p maps that better should have forced spawn, but do not in some cases.
and sure, antiga produces good games and daybreak is a really good map, but even these will go at some point. it is just fun to try new stuff. i'll leave the discussion here and try to make a fun map
edit: ok, i hate to those this i quote you quote thing, but let's go through it, you seem to be a very precise person
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: you are right, the current map pool is fairly balanced. lets just stop producing more maps. strange attitude. i mean i see where you are coming from, but what would be your starting point to make things "better"? do you have any ideas or wishes?
Read the post you're replying to more fully? Not sure how else to respond to this question.
i did. yet i wanted to ask for, what you wish for in all seriousness. because thinking about how to talk tournament makes alone does not help either. the whole idea of a union is to re-establish a good and public discussion first and foremost, after the whole team thing actually created quite a split and hurt map feedback a lot (imo). so to establish a discussion what maps are needed and to be produced and find a mode to highlight good maps is a step that is really needed before tournament organizers are approached. so let me ask you again: what do you wish for? take the last few motm maps and discuss how to "sell" them to TOs?
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic.
Its impossibility is the point I'm trying to get across. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.
i have a problem with this because imo it does not need to be mentioned at all - and it does not make sense as long as you see the process of map critique (best map) as non valid, as long as you do not accept that subjectivity is ok and actually balances out quite a bit when you just ask wnough people to argument for or against a map.
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: Please write (yes, YOU, everybody!) what map should be in the map pool instead of map x and why. If you think such a map is not yet produced, than say what features this map should have.
in such a process, people would stand up for someone else's map and say "I support map X, it should be in the mappool instead of map y, because...". this would lead to a more elaborated critique and no more "i know what the mappool should be like-fuck blizzard attitude" . I mean, just to get a picture what people here think.
only thinking about a structure surely gets us nowhere. but saying all ideas are doomed, when peopl try to get somethig going doesn't help either.
Wrong. You didn't seem to take anything away from the post you're responding to, or at best, excruciatingly cherry-picked quotes you wanted to respond to far out of their original context and intent.
why should i take something away? this is not a battle i am trying to win... this is a general idea that came to my mind and i think it would help big parts of the community to actually evaluate their "work" and make better maps long term. it has nothing to do with you personal, but with you (the readers).
On October 24 2012 06:36 Samro225am wrote: i do not see where this would differ from most believes. what we need is a bit more better maps to create more visibility and slowly initiate more(!) and regular map rotation with hopefully very similar map pools
Just making good maps, posting them on a barely viewed sub-forum on a community site, and hoping they get noticed by businesses doesn't create more visibility. If it did, the mapmaking community wouldn't be thinking up ideas like unions to improve the situation. It's also not up to us to initiate more/consistent map rotation in tournaments. That's up to the tournaments. The best we can do is make a solid case why such a thing is beneficial to them; I talk about this in my last post.
... You did read the post in full, right?
you made a solid case why it is beneficial? sure you did and i think what you said is common sense. not want to take anything away from you, but sure, wth... entertainment is better with more interesting games on a few newer maps because player will adept and playstyles will evolve. we had that a thousand times, didn't we?[/QUOTE]
i think a form of organization that extends the teams would be beneficial. and yes, we cannot change map rotation, but we can make better maps because right now there are just too few maps that are tournament ready
and to quote myself:
i do not see where this would differ from most believes.
I don't think you can say that the current maps are bad, but I think you can explain why certain maps are better / more interesting then other maps, and I am sure there are better maps then these that are used in tournies / ladder now.
I still think we should rush into this, so we can get some sort of formality, even if the council does not consists of everyone's opinions, it can self proclaim that it does and therefore be able to maybe get new maps into tournies and the ladder.
If we do not rush into a council then the best thing we can do is to gather an enormous amount of maps from this forum and then throw away the bad / ones that are too old slowly until we are left with about 20 maps that are decent with today's metagame, then maybe put it on vote or something that will allow us to be left with 1 map (or maybe top 5). Sort of like MotM only for every map ever made in this forum. Then we all can start to publish these few maps together!
On October 24 2012 05:32 iamcaustic wrote: This goes beyond simply raw numbers (of which the mapmaking community has none anyway). There is a lot of public perception that sways the tournament organizers. When people constantly post things such as "I only watch the GSL because I'm only interested in the highest level of play", how do you think people like Sundance will be analyzing how to get those people to watch MLG? Apple had "crackberry" to run on, tournament organizers have "best players" to run on. It's not coincidence that every major Western tournament invites Koreans.
To me it is fairly obvious that if you are going to have a premier tournament you need the premier players. What is so hard for tournament organizers to understand that they need the BEST players, playing on the BEST maps, with the BEST casters, the BEST format, and the BEST production. If you have Stephano vs MKP on Steppes of War is that a winning formula? The players are very important but you can screw other things up to make who is playing irrelevant.
Fixing the map pool is not very costly. I guess the logic is that if they don't have the same old maps that players are comfortable with they won't want to play. In my opinion that is faulty reasoning though, if a tournament has a large prize pool players will show up.
I can't think of a good reason to not fix the map situation. It appears to me that it all stems from a lack of understanding. It is concerning because if you don't understand your business you perish.
To you it's fairly obvious because it's easy to say "pick the BEST maps" and disagree with current map pools. Here's a nice exercise for you: explain why, with empirical evidence, that the current tournament map pool is not the best, and what the best maps would be.
Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
I constantly see people in the TL skype chat complain about new GSL maps. "Why did they pick THAT map? It's awful." That's their opinion, with zero game data to back it up. Even if I agree with them in many cases, it's still just my opinion (for example, I always hated Metropolis -- glad it didn't last long). The GSL, in the meanwhile, creates that necessary play data through featuring the map in their tournaments. If the stats are good, it stays a while. If not, it gets labelled a bad map and is cycled out. Crux has landed itself into a nice position as being the go-to supplier of maps for the GSL. I say well done, considering there are some where who say the team model doesn't work.
Getting to the point: the arguments being used by the mapmaking community are weak at best when wanting to affect change in map pools. It's not surprising little has changed. Focus should be more on positive benefits of a progressively refreshing map pool, and attention should be brought to growing viewer sentiment that map pools are too stale. Telling tournaments to select maps based on a vague, subjective metric like "the best" and then vilifying them (e.g. Diamond calling them "retards") for choosing a "bad" map results in the opposite. We get what we currently have: tournaments with stale map pools being too afraid to switch it up, only moving out of their comfort zone to pick up maps that the GSL has already vetted for months.
In many ways, the mapping community is its own worst enemy, but I've said this sort of thing before when stating that mappers are to blame for the team model not working.
Why do I argue with you, that is the real question. We don't actually disagree on anything substantial. But I must. ><
I think map teams were primarily for making better maps in inception. Crux can't be compared because it's just a wrapper for the 2-3 guys that Mr. Chae tapped prior to even beginning GSL to make maps (following the BW model). This is somewhat like Diamond putting together the ESV map team. Promoting map rotation is a natural extension for the mapping community because we're passionate about maps, but it should never have fallen to us. I don't think any mapmakers should be blamed when literally every other segment of the SC2 scene could and should have been putting in as much or more effort. We need more people like Morrow, for example.
That said, you're entirely right that a campaign of metered persuasion and raising popular and professional support would be better than anything yet attempted.
I wouldn't say you're arguing with me by saying this.
Frankly, I agree that in an ideal world it shouldn't have fallen on the mapmaking community to put all the effort in trying to get tournaments to have solid map pools with a decent refresh rate. For the past while, however, nobody but mapmakers have been passionate about the map pools, hence why it seems to have fallen on our shoulders. As long as the games were good and people were entertained, what problem was there to see in their eyes?
With growing community sentiment now beginning to sway in our favour over the state of map pools due to stagnation in how games play out, growing worry about SC2's diminishing authority in the e-sports scene as games like League of Legends hit record breaking viewership numbers, and an overall concern about the long-term health of the competitive scene, there's a grand opportunity to make that job a whole lot easier -- as long as it's handled properly.
On October 24 2012 07:00 moskonia wrote: I don't think you can say that the current maps are bad, but I think you can explain why certain maps are better / more interesting then other maps, and I am sure there are better maps then these that are used in tournies / ladder now.
I still think we should rush into this, so we can get some sort of formality, even if the council does not consists of everyone's opinions, it can self proclaim that it does and therefore be able to maybe get new maps into tournies and the ladder.
If we do not rush into a council then the best thing we can do is to gather an enormous amount of maps from this forum and then throw away the bad / ones that are too old slowly until we are left with about 20 maps that are decent with today's metagame, then maybe put it on vote or something that will allow us to be left with 1 map (or maybe top 5). Sort of like MotM only for every map ever made in this forum. Then we all can start to publish these few maps together!
I agree there's urgency. I think we don't have to jump quite so fast though, because it makes sense to me that our tide is the general atmosphere of the HotS release, which is a pretty big window that isn't about to disappear. I will explain this more when I sketch out a plan.
We don't want to get started down a path that could have been decided better, but also it'd be a shame to let this fizzle, so it should be pursued steadily and show progress (even if it's just ideas and discussion right now).
I am kind of against the idea of picking a small selection of maps to promote, which means: if your map isn't on that list, it's GG - which I think that can be very disheartening for mapmakers.
I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation.
On October 24 2012 07:22 lefix wrote: I am kind of against the idea of picking a small selection of maps to promote, which means: if your map isn't on that list, it's GG - which I think that can be very disheartening for mapmakers.
I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation.
i think that was not excluded so far, but good that you highlight this aspect!
On October 24 2012 07:22 lefix wrote: I am kind of against the idea of picking a small selection of maps to promote, which means: if your map isn't on that list, it's GG - which I think that can be very disheartening for mapmakers.
I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation.
I agree with this. However, if we were to have a cumulative list of maps from the contributions made each month, the list would proceed to build up until it becomes unwieldy. To this end, we would probably need a sort of cut-off time limit, e.g. Melee Maps made more than 4 months ago will no longer be considered. Also, the number of maps to feature from week to week would have to be weighed carefully and/or changed, and the possibility of allowing someone to put their map back into consideration by requesting it or bumping, etc. would have to be considered. Consider how the forum itself works: the most popular topics stay on top, and all topics from the last 3 days are visible, after that it disappears. However, if the author wishes to do so they may bump it and bring it back to the public eye.
On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: i did. yet i wanted to ask for, what you wish for in all seriousness. because thinking about how to talk tournament makes alone does not help either. the whole idea of a union is to re-establish a good and public discussion first and foremost, after the whole team thing actually created quite a split and hurt map feedback a lot (imo). so to establish a discussion what maps are needed and to be produced and find a mode to highlight good maps is a step that is really needed before tournament organizers are approached. so let me ask you again: what do you wish for? take the last few motm maps and discuss how to "sell" them to TOs?
I seem to be getting this sort of request quite a bit, despite the substance already being in my posts. I'll try to bullet-point everything for easier digestion (and at the request of Icetoad for people to be more concise in this thread ):
1. Mapmaking teams should be run more properly. They're currently a mess and do not look like organizations to be taken seriously by legitimate businesses (tournaments organizations) trying to sell a consumer product (the tournament). 2. With a much better image worth taking seriously, mapmaking teams should put effort explaining to these businesses why a consistently rotating map pool is good for their consumer product. 3. Mapmakers need to stop trying to convince these businesses to pick "good/best" maps -- there is no empirical data from which to judge this, making it a worthless suggestion. 4. Also, a need to stop publicly vilifying these businesses with insults when they introduce a map you don't like. If a map is bad, the games and public reaction will show that, and a rotating pool will allow those maps to be phased out promptly (ties in with point 2).
For details regarding any of these points, just search for my posts in this thread. I will not answer questions like "how do we even start trying to contact these people?" If you have questions like this, I suggest acquiring more business experience before attempting to create these sorts of business relations.
On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: i have a problem with this because imo it does not need to be mentioned at all - and it does not make sense as long as you see the process of map critique (best map) as non valid, as long as you do not accept that subjectivity is ok and actually balances out quite a bit when you just ask wnough people to argument for or against a map.
Actually, it was important to be mentioned because I was responding to MarcusRife, who was making statements about how tournaments should pick "the BEST maps", as he put it. Context matters.
On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: why should i take something away? this is not a battle i am trying to win... this is a general idea that came to my mind and i think it would help big parts of the community to actually evaluate their "work" and make better maps long term. it has nothing to do with you personal, but with you (the readers).
It's not about winning/losing "battles". However, you cherry-picked a part of my post and made it a case for the exact opposite I was suggesting. That is what I mean about not taking anything away from my post.
I was saying how choosing things like a "best" map is impossible, and that the focus should be on convincing tournaments to refresh their map pools regularly in the first place. With your cherry picking, you made the suggestion for people (including myself) to message tournaments with what maps we think should be in their map pools -- in other words, what maps we think are the "best". You must be able to see what's wrong with that.
On October 24 2012 06:59 Samro225am wrote: you made a solid case why it is beneficial? sure you did and i think what you said is common sense. not want to take anything away from you, but sure, wth... entertainment is better with more interesting games on a few newer maps because player will adept and playstyles will evolve. we had that a thousand times, didn't we?
i think a form of organization that extends the teams would be beneficial. and yes, we cannot change map rotation, but we can make better maps because right now there are just too few maps that are tournament ready
i do not see where this would differ from most believes.
I've already made my concerns about this union idea, so I won't get repetitive. I do want to say, though, that I disagree with the idea that there are too few maps that are "tournament-ready". That's just as vague and subjective a term as "best". There are many good-looking (referring to layout, not just aesthetics) maps that have been made; whether the same amount of them would end up actually playing out as well as they look is for initial play-testing and rotating map pools to discover.
It's for that reason I say that communication with tournaments should focus more on persuading that rotating map pools are okay, and in fact beneficial.
edit: dang, post ended up big again. I'VE FAILED YOU ICETOAD I AM SO SORRY.
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
Sure, it is subjective and there will always be disagreement. But, there are few people who would disagree with the statement that Cloud Kingdom is more interesting than Antiga Shipyard. The fact that it is hard to say what the "best" maps are give more support to the idea of rotating maps more often so that we can gather evidence on which are the more interesting maps.
You can't support the claim with data because it doesn't exist since people like him won't introduce new maps to generate the data. Once the data exists the case can be made. Its a chicken and egg problem.
If you put me in a room with Sundance I feel I could make a very strong case and help him understand. Come on Mapmaking Union get me an audience with Sundance.
All the [rather absurd, both in length and content] semantic arguments aside, I think there is another angle here that hasn't been mentioned (at least, I didn't see it in my skimming. Apologies if I missed it.) - the casual viewer.
Fans who play very little or not at all (but watch a ton of Starcraft) make up a big % of the viewerbase for tourneys. I used to be one of those fans for a little while before I got more into the game. These fans get tired of seeing the games always on the same maps for 2 reasons. 1) They want to see their favorite players play on a new, pretty landscape every so often. (sounds shallow, but it's true) 2) They get tired of always seeing the same builds (this is partially due to the meta, but certain new types of maps can and do introduce/force new builds). Casual fans love seeing stuff you don't see as often, such as nydus, reapers, etc.
These things have very little to do with balance, but for the sake of the more hardcore viewers and the pros themselves, we should keep balance in mind as well.
The idea that a huge portion of Sundance's consumer base wants to see interesting new landscapes that might play out differently is something that -can- be presented to him as a fact, as least if we do some surveying about it. If you can establish that the map pool needs to be circulated regularly for this reason, then you come to the question "who should suggest which maps to try out, keeping in mind both new playstyles and balance?". Which is where the mapmaking council/group/coalition/whatever would come in, because of their experience/expertise.
p.s. - This is not related exactly to the mapmaking council idea, but the fact that people want to see new types of games is why we should try to make as few vanilla maps as possible. Do 1-2 controversial things in each map you make, imo. (But no more than that, because if there's too many all at once then you can't balance it.)
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
Sure, it is subjective and there will always be disagreement. But, there are few people who would disagree with the statement that Cloud Kingdom is more interesting than Antiga Shipyard. The fact that it is hard to say what the "best" maps are give more support to the idea of rotating maps more often so that we can gather evidence on which are the more interesting maps.
You can't support the claim with data because it doesn't exist since people like him won't introduce new maps to generate the data. Once the data exists the case can be made. Its a chicken and egg problem.
If you put me in a room with Sundance I feel I could make a very strong case and help him understand. Come on Mapmaking Union get me an audience with Sundance.
That's essentially my point, and why I have said that it's more important to make a case to tournaments why their product will benefit by having a regularly rotating map pool. It's my opinion that growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps is the key for giving tournaments a legitimate reason to give the idea a shot.
------------------
On October 24 2012 07:56 Fatam wrote: All the [rather absurd, both in length and content] semantic arguments aside, I think there is another angle here that hasn't been mentioned (at least, I didn't see it in my skimming. Apologies if I missed it.) - the casual viewer.
Fans who play very little or not at all (but watch a ton of Starcraft) make up a big % of the viewerbase for tourneys. I used to be one of those fans for a little while before I got more into the game. These fans get tired of seeing the games always on the same maps for 2 reasons. 1) They want to see their favorite players play on a new, pretty landscape every so often. (sounds shallow, but it's true) 2) They get tired of always seeing the same builds (this is partially due to the meta, but certain new types of maps can and do introduce/force new builds). Casual fans love seeing stuff you don't see as often, such as nydus, reapers, etc.
These things have very little to do with balance, but for the sake of the more hardcore viewers and the pros themselves, we should keep balance in mind as well.
The idea that a huge portion of Sundance's consumer base wants to see interesting new landscapes that might play out differently is something that -can- be presented to him as a fact, as least if we do some surveying about it. If you can establish that the map pool needs to be circulated regularly for this reason, then you come to the question "who should suggest which maps to try out, keeping in mind both new playstyles and balance?". Which is where the mapmaking council/group/coalition/whatever would come in, because of their experience/expertise.
p.s. - This is not related exactly to the mapmaking council idea, but the fact that people want to see new types of games is why we should try to make as few vanilla maps as possible. Do 1-2 controversial things in each map you make, imo. (But no more than that, because if there's too many all at once then you can't balance it.)
I don't use the term "casual viewer" directly, but they are included when I speak of "viewers" and "consumers". In particular, like I was just saying to MarcusRife about growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps and how that sentiment can be key to convincing tournament organizers like Sundance to have a more regularly rotating map pool. I agree with you completely on that.
Also agree about casual viewers. Witness the appropriate spot on my table.
I am so proud of my table.
If you are unconvinced about the casual viewers, spend time in stream chat on a mid-low traffic stream of a popular player. It's 90% casuals, and all they want is novelty. The untapped appetite for maps is readily apparent. They also have almost no clue about the finer points of SC2. We wouldn't have to prove anything to them to have their support. We already have it implicitly but we're not visible to them in any way.
btw it doesn't make sense to me at all that so many people who understand sc2 poorly watch it with such rapt attention, but it's cool with me!
I posted a link earlier to a thread discussing how casuals play SC2. A lot of people said they play custom 1v1 games. Think about what this means for map visibility if the upcoming custom games system matched arcade and even a single community map gained popularity (snowballing playtime/high ratings/featured thumbnail pic slot).
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
Sure, it is subjective and there will always be disagreement. But, there are few people who would disagree with the statement that Cloud Kingdom is more interesting than Antiga Shipyard. The fact that it is hard to say what the "best" maps are give more support to the idea of rotating maps more often so that we can gather evidence on which are the more interesting maps.
You can't support the claim with data because it doesn't exist since people like him won't introduce new maps to generate the data. Once the data exists the case can be made. Its a chicken and egg problem.
If you put me in a room with Sundance I feel I could make a very strong case and help him understand. Come on Mapmaking Union get me an audience with Sundance.
That's essentially my point, and why I have said that it's more important to make a case to tournaments why their product will benefit by having a regularly rotating map pool. It's my opinion that growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps is the key for giving tournaments a legitimate reason to give the idea a shot.
That is what you assume to be true here implicitly, but how do you know that is even true? Maybe they are right and fast rotation does not benefit them commercially in any way?
Also, why don't people go ballistic on you while you say pretty much the same things as I. what's your secret son?
On October 24 2012 07:22 lefix wrote: I am kind of against the idea of picking a small selection of maps to promote, which means: if your map isn't on that list, it's GG - which I think that can be very disheartening for mapmakers.
I prefer the idea of highlighting a new map or two once every couple of weeks. That way you'd still have a list after a couple of months, but one could still hope that his map might be the next to get highlighted. It's almost the same thing, but I think that way it'd be much better in terms of motivation.
I think by now most thoughts and concerns have been brought up, no matter who is winning the argument.
I think the next step should be to get a bunch of guys together in a skype group, evaluate what has been said so far and decide on the best course of action. And then get this thing going.
On October 24 2012 14:09 EatThePath wrote: Also agree about casual viewers. Witness the appropriate spot on my table.
I am so proud of my table.
If you are unconvinced about the casual viewers, spend time in stream chat on a mid-low traffic stream of a popular player. It's 90% casuals, and all they want is novelty. The untapped appetite for maps is readily apparent. They also have almost no clue about the finer points of SC2. We wouldn't have to prove anything to them to have their support. We already have it implicitly but we're not visible to them in any way.
btw it doesn't make sense to me at all that so many people who understand sc2 poorly watch it with such rapt attention, but it's cool with me!
I posted a link earlier to a thread discussing how casuals play SC2. A lot of people said they play custom 1v1 games. Think about what this means for map visibility if the upcoming custom games system matched arcade and even a single community map gained popularity (snowballing playtime/high ratings/featured thumbnail pic slot).
This last part makes me think that if this project is fulfilled and community maps are chosen to be highlighted, an effort should be organized and made by as many as possible to rate the chosen maps highly so they'll actually be played by people on bnet and not just discussed even more on TL.
@ Samro225am -- Please make another thread to discuss "how to make better maps / why to stop producing maps and refine current maps / how to get replays to see how to improve your map / etc.". I really want to jump in on that, but this is not the place. And as has been said by others (including me) getting the "best" maps is not of *primary* importance as far as the goal of getting *regular/consistant/quick map rotation* is concerned. Once we get a foot in the door, then we can work on making sure that our maps are improved to the highest caliber before airing. If the general populace is not picky, then we just need *new* at first. After that, we can worry about absolute perfection of the product. But just remember, even in the OSL and MSL they experimented and had flops along the way -- just another reason why absolute perfection isn't so key to this endeavor. Maps didn't kill Korean BW, SC2 did.
@ iamcaustic -- In response to this, I agree with your sentiments.
@ EatThePath -- Really? I'm surprised at you, it makes a lot of sense to me why people would want to watch SC2 without a deep understanding. It's a freakin' Sci-Fi war that you get to see unfold before your very eyes! I mean, there have been threads about this in the past. But aside from the clumping, which at high level is mitigated by expert box-spliting, it's not to hard to follow the action especially with casters and really get into it. But this is getting off topic so... :D umm... can't wait to this this plan of yours. XD
@ SiskosGoatee -- Well, as I said before, you come off as: "No, no, nO, NO, N, O, uh-uh, nope, but I can see that maybe." Caustic at least reads more like: "Well given this problem, you should probably consider X approach if you want something like this to work." At least to some degree it sounds like he trying to help out, rather than simply pointing out pitfalls (which is a positive toned way of saying what it sounds like). I'm sure you can cut all of the helpful lines in your posts as a defense, but the tone is simply overall negative.
@ MarcusRife -- You are going to get Sundance to budge?! All those in favor of Marcus as supreme leader of this MMMU (which is also coincidently the new Terran deathball composition in HoTS) raise your hand and say "asdfhjiowefhkjsdhaf!" XD
@ lefix -- I agree and disagree. As I mentioned I think this union, committee, w/e should be more focused on refining/communicating/executing/lobbying the goals of the getting tourney map rotation, improved SC2 client, etc. and not specifically promoting any particular map. But, as far as getting maps into a tournament, once the TO's say, "okay, so we should have some new maps", when they next say, "so what did you have in mind?" the MMMU should probably have a few maps up their sleeve to promote up front. But I think after that is when mapping teams, et al. start to take over their own promotion. I am wary of forming an authority entity because this is where it is no longer something that has a universally accepted voice. Now, if something like that eventually becomes necessary *after* we have tournament acceptance of better map pool rotation... I think that is something that will be discussed in due time. But I really do not see how that should be the focus of the discussion at this point in time.
@ Barrin -- Yes you, Barrin. Do you happen to have any of the statistics related to the FRB tournament? I think there was a major tournament on one of the weeks of the live casting. This might be the best place we can gather some sort of statistics on viewership of new maps. Now granted it wasn't just new maps, but the movement was born out of sentiments of the gameplay being stale which in some way included the map pool. It may not be much, but it seems like it could be a starting point for gathering any sort of "meaningful" statistics.
On October 25 2012 00:15 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: @ SiskosGoatee -- Well, as I said before, you come off as: "No, no, nO, NO, N, O, uh-uh, nope, but I can see that maybe." Caustic at least reads more like: "Well given this problem, you should probably consider X approach if you want something like this to work." At least to some degree it sounds like he trying to help out, rather than simply pointing out pitfalls (which is a positive toned way of saying what it sounds like). I'm sure you can cut all of the helpful lines in your posts as a defense, but the tone is simply overall negative.
It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea.
On October 25 2012 00:15 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: @ SiskosGoatee -- Well, as I said before, you come off as: "No, no, nO, NO, N, O, uh-uh, nope, but I can see that maybe." Caustic at least reads more like: "Well given this problem, you should probably consider X approach if you want something like this to work." At least to some degree it sounds like he trying to help out, rather than simply pointing out pitfalls (which is a positive toned way of saying what it sounds like). I'm sure you can cut all of the helpful lines in your posts as a defense, but the tone is simply overall negative.
It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea.
So again, as EatThePath has said now twice, it's about trying. Failure IS an option. It sucks as a response -- no one likes rejection. But pessimism doesn't HELP. And if you have nothing positive to add, or an alternative solution, then the input you have to give not only doesn't help, it becomes unnecessary for you to even mention really, by your own logic. Just saying "don't do this it's not worth your time", but NOT saying what IS worth the time is why people jump on you. I do not see why you cannot have seen this for yourself if you have already been able to answer how this committee endeavor is going to turn out.
Besides, the actual ways in which this committee are going to work has not been determined, so how can you be pessimistic for the workings of something that does not have a clear definition? Maybe the final definition of the committee will include the magic formula for answering your objection even though you do not see it now. Again, this is why you get jumped on. If you can't bear to waste time, then just go on doing what you were doing. If what we do works, and we get map rotation, then you are happy to get what you wanted. If what we do doesn't work, than you are happy you didn't waste your own time. I am not sure I see your angle for continuing to say "don't waste your time trying to affect tournament map pool rotation in a better organized way" since you admit that you are for better map pool rotation and since you know that many of us are going to continue this discussion no matter how much you warn/object in your current line. Suggest options or don't waste your own (and everyone else's) time (let us waste our own XD). I hate to put it in those terms, but that's what it boils down to.
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
Sure, it is subjective and there will always be disagreement. But, there are few people who would disagree with the statement that Cloud Kingdom is more interesting than Antiga Shipyard. The fact that it is hard to say what the "best" maps are give more support to the idea of rotating maps more often so that we can gather evidence on which are the more interesting maps.
You can't support the claim with data because it doesn't exist since people like him won't introduce new maps to generate the data. Once the data exists the case can be made. Its a chicken and egg problem.
If you put me in a room with Sundance I feel I could make a very strong case and help him understand. Come on Mapmaking Union get me an audience with Sundance.
That's essentially my point, and why I have said that it's more important to make a case to tournaments why their product will benefit by having a regularly rotating map pool. It's my opinion that growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps is the key for giving tournaments a legitimate reason to give the idea a shot.
That is what you assume to be true here implicitly, but how do you know that is even true? Maybe they are right and fast rotation does not benefit them commercially in any way?
Also, why don't people go ballistic on you while you say pretty much the same things as I. what's your secret son?
Basically, I admit that it's my opinion, even if I mention previous business experience to make the case I'm not just some crackpot saying nutty things. That's the secret sauce to any discussion where the topic revolves around untested/unproven statements. As long as everyone understands that we're discussing opinions, they're free to agree or disagree at their whim and everyone is happy. It also helps to not be too specific about the path to be taken, and rather push forward the broader idea so that people can think up their own approaches to accomplish that idea.
For example, you've mentioned an NASL segment as the likely way to go in order to warm tournaments up to new maps. This immediately shuts out any alternative answers, and gives the argument a more authoritative vibe. Contrast that to my posts, and I only focus on the idea of convincing tournament organizers to adopt a rotating map pool, leaving everyone to ponder their own solution how to bring it about. Gives off less of a "NO, it has to be this way!" sort of feeling, while still stating my opinions on the direction that should be taken.
On October 25 2012 00:15 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: @ SiskosGoatee -- Well, as I said before, you come off as: "No, no, nO, NO, N, O, uh-uh, nope, but I can see that maybe." Caustic at least reads more like: "Well given this problem, you should probably consider X approach if you want something like this to work." At least to some degree it sounds like he trying to help out, rather than simply pointing out pitfalls (which is a positive toned way of saying what it sounds like). I'm sure you can cut all of the helpful lines in your posts as a defense, but the tone is simply overall negative.
It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea.
So again, as EatThePath has said now twice, it's about trying. Failure IS an option. It sucks as a response -- no one likes rejection. But pessimism doesn't HELP.
I beg to differ, I believe that this is a waste of resources and in the event I can convince you to follow a different course of action which I suggested, thereby, assuming that I'm right (Which I believe), we are more likely to see pro level games on new maps, which is what I strife to achieve.
And if you have nothing positive to add, or an alternative solution, then the input you have to give not only doesn't help, it becomes unnecessary for you to even mention really, by your own logic. Just saying "don't do this it's not worth your time", but NOT saying what IS worth the time is why people jump on you. I do not see why you cannot have seen this for yourself if you have already been able to answer how this committee endeavor is going to turn out.
I've said what must be done a lot of time. I still stand by that the NASL segment is the best hope. The thing is that people want this council to work in one way or another, but what must be realized that the council is a means to achieve faster map rotation. And I believe starting of smaller with the NASL segment is a better means to that end. Therefore I am arguing against the council and in favour of the NASL segment.
Besides, the actual ways in which this committee are going to work has not been determined, so how can you be pessimistic for the workings of something that does not have a clear definition? Maybe the final definition of the committee will include the magic formula for answering your objection even though you do not see it now.
I believe that a council at the fundament will never work because for it to work and to be taken seriously it needs to be able to speak for the community consensus of mappers, and there is no community consensus.
Again, this is why you get jumped on.
I'm not so sure, I've been saying pretty much the exact same thing as caustic and suggested the same course with the addition that I proposed the NASL segment as a novel idea.
On October 24 2012 06:19 iamcaustic wrote: Assuming you're not too stubborn about it, you'll quickly realize how that's impossible. In other words, you're never going to get the argument of "pick the BEST maps" off the ground -- it's a subjective topic. This is reflected by Sundance's plea for stats, data, whatever to show how MLG's map pool is broken. The response he got? "You can't use data for this kind of thing!" Forgive me for siding with Sundance on this one, even if I also dislike the MLG map pool situation.
Sure, it is subjective and there will always be disagreement. But, there are few people who would disagree with the statement that Cloud Kingdom is more interesting than Antiga Shipyard. The fact that it is hard to say what the "best" maps are give more support to the idea of rotating maps more often so that we can gather evidence on which are the more interesting maps.
You can't support the claim with data because it doesn't exist since people like him won't introduce new maps to generate the data. Once the data exists the case can be made. Its a chicken and egg problem.
If you put me in a room with Sundance I feel I could make a very strong case and help him understand. Come on Mapmaking Union get me an audience with Sundance.
That's essentially my point, and why I have said that it's more important to make a case to tournaments why their product will benefit by having a regularly rotating map pool. It's my opinion that growing viewer sentiment for fresh maps is the key for giving tournaments a legitimate reason to give the idea a shot.
That is what you assume to be true here implicitly, but how do you know that is even true? Maybe they are right and fast rotation does not benefit them commercially in any way?
Also, why don't people go ballistic on you while you say pretty much the same things as I. what's your secret son?
Basically, I admit that it's my opinion, even if I mention previous business experience to make the case I'm not just some crackpot saying nutty things. That's the secret sauce to any discussion where the topic revolves around untested/unproven statements. As long as everyone understands that we're discussing opinions, they're free to agree or disagree at their whim and everyone is happy. It also helps to not be too specific about the path to be taken, and rather push forward the broader idea so that people can think up their own approaches to accomplish that idea.
For example, you've mentioned an NASL segment as the likely way to go in order to warm tournaments up to new maps. This immediately shuts out any alternative answers, and gives the argument a more authoritative vibe. Contrast that to my posts, and I only focus on the idea of convincing tournament organizers to adopt a rotating map pool, leaving everyone to ponder their own solution how to bring it about. Gives off less of a "NO, it has to be this way!" sort of feeling, while still stating my opinions on the direction that should be taken.
Not sure why, I have constantly said 'I believe this is the best course' not 'this is the best course'. I have no empirical data for this, this is just my gut feeling, again.
However, what I do not believe to be my 'gut feeling' is that tournament organizers want numbers and data to be convinced. Sundance at the very least plainly said so. THis is just how entertainment business operates. Shows that draw not a lot of viewers tend to get cancelled, no matter how 'good' they are. See Star Trek, the network execs absolutely loved it but were forced to cancel it because it wasn't profitable.
On October 25 2012 00:15 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: @ SiskosGoatee -- Well, as I said before, you come off as: "No, no, nO, NO, N, O, uh-uh, nope, but I can see that maybe." Caustic at least reads more like: "Well given this problem, you should probably consider X approach if you want something like this to work." At least to some degree it sounds like he trying to help out, rather than simply pointing out pitfalls (which is a positive toned way of saying what it sounds like). I'm sure you can cut all of the helpful lines in your posts as a defense, but the tone is simply overall negative.
It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea.
Frankly, there's a lot about the "current form" that has not been fleshed out. I wouldn't use the term "doomed" when not all the details are given. Rather, there were some major concerns with the overall concept (of which I made my case and we've seen some adjustment/refinement of scope as a result) and I believe that there are some steps that can be taken which would potentially make the entire concept unnecessary (not a bad thing; it just means that we'd be able to get results without having to set this union in motion).
Most of my skepticism comes from the idea that:
1. I believe the team model holds merit 2. This union idea was borne from the general perception that the team model isn't working 3. I saw some very big misses and missteps on the execution side of the team model
In other words, if mapmaking teams were mishandled/neglected in general, what would cause the handling of this project to be any more successful? That kind of skepticism is easily dispelled by action, though.
On October 25 2012 02:40 SiskosGoatee wrote: I beg to differ, I believe that this is a waste of resources and in the event I can convince you to follow a different course of action which I suggested, thereby, assuming that I'm right (Which I believe), we are more likely to see pro level games on new maps, which is what I strife to achieve.
This is why people jump on you more. There's much to be said about how one lays out their argument. Calling peoples' efforts and ideas a waste (bit of a dick move, really), clearly stating your goal is to convince people (rather than just laying out your opinions and letting others come up with their own conclusions), and qualifying potentially better results with the assumption you're right (as opposed to qualifying with something impartial like "should statement X be true"; also a dick move and doesn't make your case at all if people think you're wrong)... yeah, how you approach a discussion is kind of important.
It is, as I said (with which iamcaustic seems to agree), I believe this idea in its current form is doomed to not achieve what it wants to achieve. I can't tell you how to make a council work because I'm very sceptic it will work in any form. Furthermore, iamcaustic believes that a rotating map pool is in the interest of tournaments. I'm not even sure that is the case though I can't comment either way. In any case, they do not believe themselves it's in their interest so they need convincing. If it's not in their best interest, good luck trying to convince them of a falsehood, those tend to be hard to empirically prove. So yes, I am very negative and pessimistic of the success chances of this idea.
The problem is, all your posts after the first "it won't work" post are absolutely pointless. If we want to sit here and try to make a map council work, why would you want to spend such an effort to try and stop us? How the rest of us use our time does not even affect you.
Surely a mapmaker of all people would understand this concept.
@ SiskosGoatee -- caustic and Fatam's responses should suffice, but since you like the beat-dead-horse approach.... XD
First of all, please compose a non-quoted post detailing your opinion of how, start to finish, the current mapping community and/or general SC2 community resources are going to achieve better/quicker/[insert improving adjective here] map pool rotation in current tournament play AND ALSO on the ladder. What is your view of how the pieces fit and what might work? Don't say "I've already said the NASL segment is the best shot" -- that doesn't describe a process, it doesn't name the players involve, it doesn't explain how that is using a universal voice or whatever.
I want to see you say something like: I think that the current mapping teams should rabidly email, text, and twitter the NASL for a chance to do a segment displaying awesome game play on their map. They should get buddy-buddy with a handful of pros and host mini-tournaments on their ever rotating map pool so the NASL can see the trends in Twitch.tv viewership for the segment. After this gets popular, the team that won this segment should then push for tournament map pool rotation for the big tourney. After this, the teams can start to compete for slots with the other tournaments' streams, and eventually tackle their big tournaments, too. Finally, Barrin can start a thread on Battle.net where everyone just posts: Better map pool rotation, and finally Blizzard will cave.
If you have such business acumen, then why can't you lay out a soup to nuts business model for how better map pool rotation is going to be brought about?
Along other lines: Do you not think we can put together a group that would help validate a more or less universal opinion that simply "everyone wants better map pool rotation"? Do you not think that having such a group in some way could help lobby for that initial NASL segment? Seriously, at this point, forget the OP as anything but a starting point for this entire thread, the discussion so far has evolved pretty far past that. Why do you think that NO model of committee that might be beneficial toward getting better map pool rotation? I am still unclear of how you think an essenitally non-partisan group could not help in some way. Eventually, someone is going to start to need to make arguments why the NASL segments success (if indeed this is the ONLY in, or the only form of action that should be taken right now) means the big tournament should have a faster map pool rotation. Even in your own plan you still need to make that leap -- how is that done? Maybe you have some numbers, but it's just a segment. Wouldn't a group who's function is to rally the community, etc. as has been mentioned on other posts help, even in what I imagine is your scenario?
And if you have nothing positive to add, or an alternative solution, then the input you have to give not only doesn't help, it becomes unnecessary for you to even mention really, by your own logic. Just saying "don't do this it's not worth your time", but NOT saying what IS worth the time is why people jump on you. I do not see why you cannot have seen this for yourself if you have already been able to answer how this committee endeavor is going to turn out.
I've said what must be done a lot of time. I still stand by that the NASL segment is the best hope. The thing is that people want this council to work in one way or another, but what must be realized that the council is a means to achieve faster map rotation. And I believe starting of smaller with the NASL segment is a better means to that end. Therefore I am arguing against the council and in favour of the NASL segment.
You say an NASL map-segment would be a better means to achieving progress, but it's just another stepping stone. For instance, how would we make our chances better of NASL even listening to us? Should we just go willy-nilly, without an organized voice, or should we take our time to organize and present them with a much clearer choice to make? I'm sure they'd be much more willing to listen if we took the time to explain that we're part of a Unity that represents TPW, a team whose maps they used for a short time, as well as ESV, creator of 2 current ladder maps, in addition to all of TL's other substantially skilled mapmakers. This is a process, the Unity is not a means to an end, it is a means so that we may have access to higher-order means, to achieve our true end.
Also, if you wish to continue beating your point into our heads, you will not be contributing anything to this thread. The thoughts have already been mentioned repeatedly, I'd say you're already bogging the thread down with spam. We understand exactly what you're saying, we've understood it since your first post detailing your thoughts on the matter. Enough is enough.
I will admit that I haven't checked on this thread in about two days, and thus I just skimmed through the four pages of text walls. Even though I didn't read every word, I'm beginning to think that people are becoming too optimistic about this idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I saw a lot of talk about rotating map pools, and organizing a unified map pool within the general sc2 community. Where these are by all means things that sc2 needs, imo, these are unrealistic goals for us to be setting our sights on just yet.
Once the this idea is formed and running into a real "union", publicity will be our top priority. This will be the case from pretty much the first 3 months or so, if not longer. Publicize, publicize, publicize until the "union" is talked about on SotG, tweeted about by well known names, etc. Once the general sc2 community has become aware of the "union", what it does, and what it can do with support, we can then start to strive for some of these goals.
Though, we still need to get the thing running. This brings me back to these questions.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: Some topics worth discussing: -Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps? -How many should be on the council? How do we pick them? -Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available? -Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? -What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
Also, I entirely support any ideas to rename the union, council, or w/e. There is no particular reason why I gave those names aside presenting the idea.
On October 25 2012 07:47 Timetwister22 wrote: I will admit that I haven't checked on this thread in about two days, and thus I just skimmed through the four pages of text walls. Even though I didn't read every word, I'm beginning to think that people are becoming too optimistic about this idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I saw a lot of talk about rotating map pools, and organizing a unified map pool within the general sc2 community. Where these are by all means things that sc2 needs, imo, these are unrealistic goals for us to be setting our sights on just yet.
Once the this idea is formed and running into a real "union", publicity will be our top priority. This will be the case from pretty much the first 3 months or so, if not longer. Publicize, publicize, publicize until the "union" is talked about on SotG, tweeted about by well known names, etc. Once the general sc2 community has become aware of the "union", what it does, and what it can do with support, we can then start to strive for some of these goals.
Though, we still need to get the thing running. This brings me back to these questions.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote: Some topics worth discussing: -Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps? -How many should be on the council? How do we pick them? -Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available? -Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate? -What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
Also, I entirely support any ideas to rename the union, council, or w/e. There is no particular reason why I gave those names aside presenting the idea.
I think these questions assume a certain ontology for this union/council/etc. that has been called into question, namely, that the union should be used to highlight community maps. I think discussion has evolved to a point where we are questioning the fundemental goals of the mapmaking community and trying to discuss on broader terms what we want done, what needs to be done to do those things, and whether a union of any kind is necessary to achieve those goals.
I will answer these questions in the context of where I understand the discussion to have led (anyone can feel free to correct my interpretations or add on if I am missing something).
-Some people think the union could be used to promote maps to the tournaments. But ultimately this assumes regular and somewhat frequent map pool rotation to be an accepted norm. This assumption causes some people pause on the relevance of such a union since the promotion of maps is not a role that currently bears much meaning.
-The number of people on the council is not nearly as relevant as having wide range of opinion in attempt to capture that of the whole community. This assumes the function of the union is that which in general can be argeed upon by the entire community. The role of promotion of specific maps, is not such a generally agreed upon, whereas the promotion of the rotation of maps is at least more agreed upon.
-I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find talent in the community, perhaps even amongst mapper -- I'm not sure how this is entirely relevant and has definately not been a major point of discussion.
-MOTM could become the entity which the union ultimately points to for promote a given set of maps. Again, this hinges upon certain assumptions about the union which have been called into question.
-The union could be involved in all sorts of tournaments based around new maps, taking polls, trying to virally market the idea of better map pool rotation, lobbying big tournaments and Blizzard, trying to get NASL to do a mapper/tournament segment, the list goes on. The question is somewhat vague, and I think closest to what is actually being discussed right now, but not in the way that I think you meant.
EDIT2 (the first was a clarity correction): tbh, I think it would be worth finding the time to read through the last four pages if you are going to maintain this topic.
When I think about it, a "union" would fit to have many people in it, maybe anyone who wants to join in will be allowed to, maybe giving some requirements such as making a few maps map or having X amount of posts in the map forum, but it should still accept most people who want to join to it. This will allow for much more work to be done, since every union member will care about the union and will try to publicize it since he will feel that he is part of it, and not as something he cares about but ultimately is only a helper and not a real member.
After we have a decent amount of union members we can start to do annual elections, maybe once per 6 months or so. But until the union gets big and known there should be a temporary council consisting of important mappers and community figures and maybe a representative from each team (?). This will be the best way to go once the union sets its goals and really forms itself since it feels very professional.
I propose you call it a Mapmaking Cooperative. It has less stigma associated with it than a union does and it fits better with what you want the organization to be.
I'd just like to comment that for those truly interested in pushing this, you'll have an incredible uphill battle. With the release of hots, the absolutely last thing blizzard would want to do is throw in community maps. And by relation, you have all the pros practicing on ladder on these maps, and they same old arguments will get thrown around on why they won't play customs. So yea.
On October 26 2012 01:41 MarcusRife wrote: I propose you call it a Mapmaking Cooperative. It has less stigma associated with it than a union does and it fits better with what you want the organization to be.
That and it's exactly what role it should have, at least if it means the same thing as in French.
I hate to double post, and I apologize. However, since there hasn't been much discussion on this recently I come with a proposal with the intent of re-sparking the discussion and moving the idea as a whole forward.
I have come up with a council choosing method that can be viewed as half dictatorship and half democracy. First, we would need to compile a list of those willing to be on the council. So if you'd like a seat, you'd either post here or send a PM. Second, the mapping community would have to entrust me, or someone else if decided, to pick around 10-15 people that they deem worthy of being on the council out of those who said they are willing. Lastly, of those 10-15 chosen, the community would vote for their 7 favorites via PM. The seven with most votes would get a spot on council. Since ties could very well happen, we'd need to discuss potential tie breakers.
I think we should first come up with a distribution of types of people that we would want on the council, i.e. 4 mappers 2 players and 1 caster or whatever. Then go about asking who would be willing and selecting 15 between all three types of people (I think more is better so that those who are not voted for do not feel as bad about it) and then voting on which of these in each category should be seated.
I think mappers are much more important then players and casters, it should include mostly mappers, with a good spokesman and maybe 1 caster and 1 player, maybe Morrow and Doa if they want (they are the most map caring casters and players I think).