|
On November 10 2012 08:13 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 07:17 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that. This sums up your contribution quite nicely: nothing. Is your goal simply to beat your point into our heads until we say you're right? I'm sorry, but I've contributed far more novel ideas to this discussion than you have whose majority of insight into it comes down to sharky comments like this. Quite frankly, you just disagree with my, admittedly, fatalistic position and don't want to hear it. You are as guilty as I of what you claim I do, except that I have contributed far more novel ideas to the table than you have.
How has what I said come to resemble your words in any way? You've stated your position - that tournament organizers care only about viewer numbers, that they want empirical proof that a map will boost them, and that we know nothing - but how do you know this to be true? It is a fatalistic view, as you say, but for all we know it's nothing more than an assumption, and repeatedly shoving your assumptive point of view into our sight with every of your posts is stifling and irritating to those who read it. Most of what I've been saying is said toward the end of, frankly, getting you to shut up.
|
On November 10 2012 08:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 08:13 SiskosGoatee wrote:On November 10 2012 07:17 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that. This sums up your contribution quite nicely: nothing. Is your goal simply to beat your point into our heads until we say you're right? I'm sorry, but I've contributed far more novel ideas to this discussion than you have whose majority of insight into it comes down to sharky comments like this. Quite frankly, you just disagree with my, admittedly, fatalistic position and don't want to hear it. You are as guilty as I of what you claim I do, except that I have contributed far more novel ideas to the table than you have. How has what I said come to resemble your words in any way? You've stated your position - that tournament organizers care only about viewer numbers, that they want empirical proof that a map will boost them, and that we know nothingt how do you know this to be true Because they ask it on Twitter?
it is a fatalistic view, as you say, but for all we know it's nothing more than an assumption, and repeatedly shoving your assumptive point of view into our sight with every of your posts is stifling and irritating to those who read it. Most of what I've been saying is said toward the end of, frankly, getting you to shut up. Because you are repeatedly assuming something which is not only unproven but also unlikely. Namely that tournament organizers benefit from a rotating map pool and/or that they don't need such numbers to be convinced. I am merely sceptical towards the former, it could go either way. However we have clear indication in a form of the Tweet by Sundance in that he's not interested in theory, he wants numbers, no more, no less.
You 'repeating' that tournaments would benefit from a rotating map pool doesn't make it true, I am not convinced either way however there is no proof that this is even the case, furthermore, even if it were true, good luck proving it to them.
You have been more repetitive than I I feel. As have a lot of other people in this discussion quite frankly, difference is that you don't like my few, because not only is it dissident, it's also fatalistic, the last thing people want to hear is 'I'm sorry, but what you want to achieve, there is no way to achieve that.'
|
On November 10 2012 09:32 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 08:42 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2012 08:13 SiskosGoatee wrote:On November 10 2012 07:17 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that. This sums up your contribution quite nicely: nothing. Is your goal simply to beat your point into our heads until we say you're right? I'm sorry, but I've contributed far more novel ideas to this discussion than you have whose majority of insight into it comes down to sharky comments like this. Quite frankly, you just disagree with my, admittedly, fatalistic position and don't want to hear it. You are as guilty as I of what you claim I do, except that I have contributed far more novel ideas to the table than you have. How has what I said come to resemble your words in any way? You've stated your position - that tournament organizers care only about viewer numbers, that they want empirical proof that a map will boost them, and that we know nothingt how do you know this to be true Because they ask it on Twitter? Show nested quote +it is a fatalistic view, as you say, but for all we know it's nothing more than an assumption, and repeatedly shoving your assumptive point of view into our sight with every of your posts is stifling and irritating to those who read it. Most of what I've been saying is said toward the end of, frankly, getting you to shut up. Because you are repeatedly assuming something which is not only unproven but also unlikely. Namely that tournament organizers benefit from a rotating map pool and/or that they don't need such numbers to be convinced. I am merely sceptical towards the former, it could go either way. However we have clear indication in a form of the Tweet by Sundance in that he's not interested in theory, he wants numbers, no more, no less. You 'repeating' that tournaments would benefit from a rotating map pool doesn't make it true, I am not convinced either way however there is no proof that this is even the case, furthermore, even if it were true, good luck proving it to them. You have been more repetitive than I I feel. As have a lot of other people in this discussion quite frankly, difference is that you don't like my few, because not only is it dissident, it's also fatalistic, the last thing people want to hear is 'I'm sorry, but what you want to achieve, there is no way to achieve that.'
I haven't assumed anything, you're clearly conflating my words with someone else's. You argue that a rotating map pool might rub some people the wrong way, but you'd be catering to a minority. What we're trying to do is something that will add to the longevity to this game - you're just being contrary. If you don't think it can be done, go skive off and leave us be. You've already brought up legitimate concerns, let us work with that. Re-reiterating that this is an impossible task does literally nothing to help - if I acknowledge it as impossible it will be because we've put our best foot forward and failed completely, not because you're here shitting on everything.
|
On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 03:06 OxyGenesis wrote:On November 09 2012 23:51 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to reverse this discussion gentlemen. Why not you (whoever wants to) explain this to me:
- What is a good map, what qualities does a map posses for it to be good in your own opinion aside from obviously balance, what is 'good gameplay' that a 'good map' should encourage?
- Do you believe that trying a quicker map rotation is in the best interest of the tournament
- Do you believe that TO's are bad at what they are doing because they are reluctant to massively try a quicker map rotation?
Map making has elements that are both objective and subjective, the same as music, web design, film production and yes even art. Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that. Show nested quote +By asserting that it is purely subjective you are oversimplifying a complex subject and degenerating what could otherwise be a useful conversation. No, you're simplifying it by calling it objective, objective matters are in fact far, far simpler than subjective matters my friend. To discuss the length of a rope, which is objective is quite simple, you say the length, and then there's nothing more to discuss. The aesthetics of a painting is a far more complex endeavour to discuss. Objective matters are extremely simple compared to objective matters and if map quality was completely objective, like say balance was the only thing that mattered. The entire discussion would be extremely simple, you pick the map which is the most balanced. The end. Unfortunately it is wholly subjective and therefore far more complicated since you have to please all parties. Show nested quote +I'm not saying your points haven't been useful, they have, you just don't need to keep rewording them in every post you make. It's frustrating when other people are trying to advance the conversation and you keep dragging it back, thank you for trying another tact with your latest comment though. I'm "rewording" them to different people because like I pointed out before, they don't get it. Iefix has said, black on white, that no one would say judging maps is an objective process, there we have it, a falsehood. How am I not to repeat myself when someone comes with a falsehood? I'm sorry but I'm going to repeat the earth is round every time someone says it's flat, call it repeating or not but you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who believes the earth is flat until they are convinced it is round. Just as you cannot meaningfully debate this issue with someone who believes that no one would say that, because evidently there are some people who would say that, you being one of them. Show nested quote +I don't fully agree with your 'tournaments will only listen to numbers' argument. Tournament organisers are pragmatic, they understand that putting on a good show will increase their viewers/revenue and I'm sure they are more than willing to listen to good ideas to improve their shows provided they don't cost too much. Hopefully they are already aware of the community's desire for new maps, as that will make them more receptive to our ideas. Okay, so what argument that is numerical in natural do you have in store to attempt to convince them? Show nested quote +I work in the graphic and web design industry, so I know something about trying to sell 'ideas' to business people. If there is one thing I've learned it's that no 2 clients are alike, regardless of the size of their business or the industry they are working in. Some clients like the personal touch, others like facts and figures, others just get excited by the prospect of new ideas floating around. What I'm getting at is that sometimes changing your angle of approach can reap benefits and I would very much encourage the map making community to 'mix it up' because clearly the current approach isn't working. So do I, and I've never been able to convince anyone of anything without showing numbers of past result to demonstrate that it works and the market is receptive. Show nested quote +Asking what makes up a good map is kind of like asking what makes a good website. There are numerous answers to the question, many of which are right and some of which are wrong, but you are more likely to get an accurate answer from an experienced web designer than you are from someone that browsed the site for 10 minutes. I could talk about overarching theories on web design, but it's much easier and more useful to talk about specific web sites. The same goes for maps, you can talk about circle syndrome or the difficulty in expanding in the general sense but it's much more useful to analyse maps on a case by case basis. We don't need a set of rules that governs what makes a map good or not because we make maps and we have an inherent understanding because of that. If you want to know about what is looked at when judging a map then Barrin wrote an excellent post about a month ago titled 'Judging a melee map' or something like that. This is not an answer to my question, rather it serves to illustrate the point I'm trying to make about this. This won't ever convince any tournament whatsoever. All they care about are viewer numbers, to them, a good map is map which gets viewer a lot, no more, no less. Show nested quote +Map rotation is good because it freshens up what could potentially be a stagnating competitive scene. Tournament organisers are reluctant to introduce new maps because they don't want to be the ones to 'Blink' first. Past experience is inconclusive and in relatively volatile market tournament organisers have so far been erring on the side of caution because it's safer in the short term and no one has come to them with a viable alternative. What we need to do as a community is provide them with a viable alternative. We have the backing of the community (and a whole heap of TL and reddit comments to prove it), now we need the maps, people and infrastructure to bridge the rest of the gap. If we don't, then the mapmaking community will slowly die, as it has been doing for the past year.
And is a stagnate competitive scene bad for their viewer numbers? Do you profess to know how to run their business better than they?
Have you ever thought that maybe it was not others but you that didn't get it? I said that map making was a combination of both objective and subjective ideas, pigeonholing it in to either category is wholly unhelpful.
So that's mistake number 1 that you make, mistake number 2 is thinking that you speak for 'tournament organisers' and what they wish for. I don't profess to know their business better than they do, I am merely a consumer expressing my opinion on their product. You are the one that thinks they are speaking on the behalf of 'tournament organisers'. Furthermore if the only way you've ever convinced anyone of anything (your words) is by 'proving' it with numbers then you probably aren't the right person to be convincing people (you don't seem very good at it).
|
Jesus are you still arguing? Siskos is contributing nothing to the mapmaking community, just leave him alone. He is annoying and just won't shut up ever it seems.
|
On November 10 2012 10:10 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 06:27 SiskosGoatee wrote:On November 10 2012 03:06 OxyGenesis wrote:On November 09 2012 23:51 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to reverse this discussion gentlemen. Why not you (whoever wants to) explain this to me:
- What is a good map, what qualities does a map posses for it to be good in your own opinion aside from obviously balance, what is 'good gameplay' that a 'good map' should encourage?
- Do you believe that trying a quicker map rotation is in the best interest of the tournament
- Do you believe that TO's are bad at what they are doing because they are reluctant to massively try a quicker map rotation?
Map making has elements that are both objective and subjective, the same as music, web design, film production and yes even art. Hush, no one would ever argue that. Haven't you read what Iefix would, no one would ever argue that. By asserting that it is purely subjective you are oversimplifying a complex subject and degenerating what could otherwise be a useful conversation. No, you're simplifying it by calling it objective, objective matters are in fact far, far simpler than subjective matters my friend. To discuss the length of a rope, which is objective is quite simple, you say the length, and then there's nothing more to discuss. The aesthetics of a painting is a far more complex endeavour to discuss. Objective matters are extremely simple compared to objective matters and if map quality was completely objective, like say balance was the only thing that mattered. The entire discussion would be extremely simple, you pick the map which is the most balanced. The end. Unfortunately it is wholly subjective and therefore far more complicated since you have to please all parties. I'm not saying your points haven't been useful, they have, you just don't need to keep rewording them in every post you make. It's frustrating when other people are trying to advance the conversation and you keep dragging it back, thank you for trying another tact with your latest comment though. I'm "rewording" them to different people because like I pointed out before, they don't get it. Iefix has said, black on white, that no one would say judging maps is an objective process, there we have it, a falsehood. How am I not to repeat myself when someone comes with a falsehood? I'm sorry but I'm going to repeat the earth is round every time someone says it's flat, call it repeating or not but you can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who believes the earth is flat until they are convinced it is round. Just as you cannot meaningfully debate this issue with someone who believes that no one would say that, because evidently there are some people who would say that, you being one of them. I don't fully agree with your 'tournaments will only listen to numbers' argument. Tournament organisers are pragmatic, they understand that putting on a good show will increase their viewers/revenue and I'm sure they are more than willing to listen to good ideas to improve their shows provided they don't cost too much. Hopefully they are already aware of the community's desire for new maps, as that will make them more receptive to our ideas. Okay, so what argument that is numerical in natural do you have in store to attempt to convince them? I work in the graphic and web design industry, so I know something about trying to sell 'ideas' to business people. If there is one thing I've learned it's that no 2 clients are alike, regardless of the size of their business or the industry they are working in. Some clients like the personal touch, others like facts and figures, others just get excited by the prospect of new ideas floating around. What I'm getting at is that sometimes changing your angle of approach can reap benefits and I would very much encourage the map making community to 'mix it up' because clearly the current approach isn't working. So do I, and I've never been able to convince anyone of anything without showing numbers of past result to demonstrate that it works and the market is receptive. Asking what makes up a good map is kind of like asking what makes a good website. There are numerous answers to the question, many of which are right and some of which are wrong, but you are more likely to get an accurate answer from an experienced web designer than you are from someone that browsed the site for 10 minutes. I could talk about overarching theories on web design, but it's much easier and more useful to talk about specific web sites. The same goes for maps, you can talk about circle syndrome or the difficulty in expanding in the general sense but it's much more useful to analyse maps on a case by case basis. We don't need a set of rules that governs what makes a map good or not because we make maps and we have an inherent understanding because of that. If you want to know about what is looked at when judging a map then Barrin wrote an excellent post about a month ago titled 'Judging a melee map' or something like that. This is not an answer to my question, rather it serves to illustrate the point I'm trying to make about this. This won't ever convince any tournament whatsoever. All they care about are viewer numbers, to them, a good map is map which gets viewer a lot, no more, no less. Map rotation is good because it freshens up what could potentially be a stagnating competitive scene. Tournament organisers are reluctant to introduce new maps because they don't want to be the ones to 'Blink' first. Past experience is inconclusive and in relatively volatile market tournament organisers have so far been erring on the side of caution because it's safer in the short term and no one has come to them with a viable alternative. What we need to do as a community is provide them with a viable alternative. We have the backing of the community (and a whole heap of TL and reddit comments to prove it), now we need the maps, people and infrastructure to bridge the rest of the gap. If we don't, then the mapmaking community will slowly die, as it has been doing for the past year.
And is a stagnate competitive scene bad for their viewer numbers? Do you profess to know how to run their business better than they? Have you ever thought that maybe it was not others but you that didn't get it? I said that map making was a combination of both objective and subjective ideas, pigeonholing it in to either category is wholly unhelpful. Yes, and I say that judging it has no objective qualities whatsoever, the same with art.
You know that for instance saying that murder/rape/whatever is bad is subjective, and not objective right? I don't think you fully realize what objective and subjective means.
So that's mistake number 1 that you make, mistake number 2 is thinking that you speak for 'tournament organisers' and what they wish for. I do in the case when we have clear indication, as in, a Twitter post, which shows exactly what I am saying, sundance wants numbers, not theory.
I don't profess to know their business better than they do You have I believe called them ignorant in the past for their course of action.
I am merely a consumer expressing my opinion on their product. You are the one that thinks they are speaking on the behalf of 'tournament organisers'. Furthermore if the only way you've ever convinced anyone of anything (your words) is by 'proving' it with numbers then you probably aren't the right person to be convincing people (you don't seem very good at it).
I am just saying what they want, and in the case of Sundance have explicitly said that he wants. Sundance in this case said black on white that he wants numbers and not theory. Other TO's haven't but it's not much of a stress to assume they work on a similar principle because almost every media company does. Viewer/listener numbers dictate everything in television, film, radio, theatre.
|
On November 10 2012 10:17 Ragoo wrote:
Jesus are you still arguing? Siskos is contributing nothing to the mapmaking community, just leave him alone. He is annoying and just won't shut up ever it seems.
Quite.
|
Well I think this thread is pretty much derailed already. Meh.
Yes, and I say that judging it has no objective qualities whatsoever, the same with art.
Of course judging art has objective qualities to it, the same as music or film. Why do you insist on boiling everything down to either subjective or objective when doing so is incredibly unhelpful? Map making isn't even art, it's design.
You know that for instance saying that murder/rape/whatever is bad is subjective, and not objective right? I don't think you fully realize what objective and subjective means.
I do understand what they mean thank you. Nice use of the rape card though.
I do in the case when we have clear indication, as in, a Twitter post, which shows exactly what I am saying, sundance wants numbers, not theory.
You have 1 tweet. Please don't profess to know the mind of someone that you have never actually met, met alone know.
You have I believe called them ignorant in the past for their course of action.
I don't remember calling them ignorant but even if I did ignorant is a descriptive word, not an insult. It's pretty clear that on the whole they are ignorant of the map making community, and that is largely our fault.
I am just saying what they want, and in the case of Sundance have explicitly said that he wants. Sundance in this case said black on white that he wants numbers and not theory. Other TO's haven't but it's not much of a stress to assume they work on a similar principle because almost every media company does. Viewer/listener numbers dictate everything in television, film, radio, theatre.
You do not speak for the tournaments. You have taken 1 tweet and decided to use it to knock down every useful argument that has been brought up in this and other threads and you wonder why people get annoyed at you and say you are unhelpful to the conversation? I had my own radio show in the past and let me tell you, not everything is dictated by viewer numbers, I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Can a show get cut because of low viewer numbers? Sure. But actually the producers are far more likely to look at the show (both objectively and subjectively) and make suggestions for changes. Viewer numbers are an indicator, right now they are indicating that SC2 is on the decline. Hopefully the most savvy tournament organisers will take this as an indicator that something needs to be changed and what's the hot topic right now? Maps.
Your flat earth analogy falls flat (sorry) when you realise that the only evidence you have that the world is round is 1 tweet made quite a long time ago. Then you realise that most of the flat earthers aren't even saying the earth is flat, they just want to explore the world a bit more and 1 guy is stopping them saying 'there's no point sailing over there, the earth is round so you'll just come right back to where you started. It says so here on this ancient vague manuscript written by the great god Sundance. Praise him for he is infallible'.
|
Oops, made an error, ignore this
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
