Teamliquid Map Contest 8 - Page 11

On February 19 2017 06:26 StraKo wrote:
yes i think they have not enough time to really test every map. You can't judge a map by it's looks, just like you can't judge a book by the cover.

You need to play the map multiple times against highly skilled and experienced players to really understand how it could play out and if the map is suited for long time ladder usage.

A season is a long period of time.

A good map needs good racial balance, high replayability (no frustrating features that could get annoying after multiple matches) and a good base layout depending on the map's category.

If you're playing the game everyday, laddering multiple hours etc. the looks of a map is almost one of the least important aspects.

Gameplay is everything in my opinion. If a map provides good gameplay, people enjoy playing on it and good games will be the result.

To understand how good the gameplay quality of a map is, you have to spend a lot of time play testing it.

On February 19 2017 07:39 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


That's not what people are complaining about. TLMCs are always judged based on the map overviews since no one has the resources or manpower to test maps extensively. And you can learn a lot about a map from how it looks especially if it's bad.

However last time the judges had a week to do that, discuss the pros and cons of various maps etc, and this time they only had 24 hours.

On February 19 2017 10:15 Fatam wrote:


It really showed. Last TLMC I had a few qualms but I really only thought 1 or 2 of the finalists was a bad decision.

This time IMO about half are questionable. (there are some great maps in the other half, though, so not taking anything away from those)

If I'd known the judging would be this bad, I would have abstained and volunteered to judge to hopefully ensure a more reasonable result. Forget that I didn't get a map in, whatever. I thought I'd get 1 or 2 in, but I didn't. There were many other maps by different mapmakers that were robbed, even if you don't think any of mine were any good.

We're putting in 18 second rush maps with no heightened defense mechanisms in place to counteract that (in fact, it even has a backdoor), we're putting in 3p assymetrical maps. In general we're putting in bad to mediocre layouts that happen to have very good decoration. We're putting all these maps in the finalist pool over well-crafted, well-considered, vastly more interesting layouts. And there seemed to have been some pretty clear judging bias towards one mapmaker. I don't really understand why that happened and why people can't be objective. Clearly we're all 12 and unable to dumpster a map even if it's made by someone we have a personal affiliation with.

I mean I guess you can warn/ban me for what I just wrote since I don't have ironclad evidence, but anyone that has experience judging maps could look at the situation and see that the results were affected by bias.

It's over now but I really hope we can plan next TLMC better! Mainly you need to ensure that you have wayy more time to judge.

It's kind of a 2 steps forward 1 step back scenario.. last TLMC had a few issues, yes, but it was the best one to date. With this one we definitely took a step back. I doubt the judges even had enough time to read the map descriptions and details that we were required to write for the submissions, what with trying to judge 100+ submissions in 24 hours (so for most judges.. probably 1, maybe 2 sittings).

I would firstly suggest next time include the people that are good at properly judging overviews quickly (if indeed the judging period will be this short) aka a lot of us mapmakers. It's pretty easy to prevent conflict of interest here, you simply cannot vote on your own maps. And if one judge seems to be abusing his power by purposefully downvoting everyone else's maps you simply remove them. I think most of us are mature enough to not do that, though.

edit: also, if you have, say 15 judges instead of 3-4, you're way more likely to iron out poor judgments from 1 or 2 people.

On February 19 2017 11:01 themusic246 wrote:
There are finalists? Wut?

On February 19 2017 11:52 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, the judging was way rushed on this one. I feel bad for the players mostly, because a lot of the kinds of maps players really hate got past the post this time, but a good number of super-solid looking maps got snuffed. You can ignore my maps, I only submitted 2, 1 of which people probably would hate anyway. When you see a masterpiece like Mendella get turned down, and then you see Avex's buddy Pengwin judging the contest, and then all 4 of Avex's maps conveniently make finalists, I can't help but feel this whole thing turned into a joke behind our backs. That and apparently an asymmetrical 3p map made it through, and I'll tell you right now, people won't like that one. Novelty is pretty much all it has going for it, just by looking vaguely like Rush Hour.

I'm not mad, just disappointed. Take it back, do it over, and get it right.

On February 19 2017 11:52 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, the judging was way rushed on this one. I feel bad for the players mostly, because a lot of the kinds of maps players really hate got past the post this time, but a good number of super-solid looking maps got snuffed. You can ignore my maps, I only submitted 2, 1 of which people probably would hate anyway. When you see a masterpiece like Mendella get turned down, and then you see Avex's buddy Pengwin judging the contest, and then all 4 of Avex's maps conveniently make finalists, I can't help but feel this whole thing turned into a joke behind our backs. That and apparently an asymmetrical 3p map made it through, and I'll tell you right now, people won't like that one. Novelty is pretty much all it has going for it, just by looking vaguely like Rush Hour.

I'm not mad, just disappointed. Take it back, do it over, and get it right.