As a judge in one of the Red Bull TLMCs, I generally agree with these criticisms and it's good you put these up for discussion so we can make TLMC the best it can be.
It takes a long time to look through all the maps, sometimes it's easy to spot big issues with some and cross them off, but usually it's a lot of theorizing since you don't have time to play on all the maps yourself.
I think it'd be good if maybe there were enough limits to submissions so that it's more realistic for maps to be given a fair chance. Maps play a huge part in the quality and longevity of the game. There are some elements that I wish were present in modern maps that I've posted about in a couple threads, and some elements I feel would be healthy but have been forgotten or are being avoided due to some unjustified stigma. It's a real shame if judges lean towards maps that look standard and pretty. We don't want pro players to be too stressed, but we should think of what maps make for fun and epic games to spectate to bring out the best of SC2.
Asking pro-gamers to judge map is just like asking the pro-football player how to make the game more interesting. Striker would ask the goal to be bigger to easier to score, goalies will ask for it to be smaller to easier to defend, defender will ask to eliminate the PK call, ect... Thats a clear conflict of interest and bias if you get different groups of players getting into the process of making the rule or setting codition of the sport. Can you make it more "objective" by forming a committee where all sides of the player pool is heard from? Yes, but they need to be transparent and comments made PUBLIC to the whole community. Then that input should be treated as the suggestion to the judges, who decide the pro and cons and finalize the voting. I just dont think we should give the player the power of rejection or down-voting new idea if it clearly interfere with their own career intesrest, just relieve them of that burdern would be nice.
I just want to make one comment and say I think I must have been drinking kool-aid because as far as I remmember 4 player maps were in starcraft for at least 5-6 years, got progressively better and some of the best games of all time were played there. But apparently they can't possibly work.
On July 12 2021 13:41 [Phantom] wrote: I just want to make one comment and say I think I must have been drinking kool-aid because as far as I remmember 4 player maps were in starcraft for at least 5-6 years, got progressively better and some of the best games of all time were played there. But apparently they can't possibly work.
LOTV made them much less fun and balanced because there isn't enough time to scout multiple spawns any more
On July 12 2021 13:41 [Phantom] wrote: I just want to make one comment and say I think I must have been drinking kool-aid because as far as I remmember 4 player maps were in starcraft for at least 5-6 years, got progressively better and some of the best games of all time were played there. But apparently they can't possibly work.
You're right. 4-player maps have had some incredible games played on them, especially Frost. Frost also had very balanced win/loss for each match up with its worst winrate sitting at a 49% winrate for Terran in TvZ. And guess what? All 4 spawns are enabled on Frost too. Frost also saw professional play in HotS and LotV and it produced great games in both. Honestly, if LotV hadn't soured so many people's opinions towards 4-players maps, I think Frost would be SC2's Fighting Spirit.
The problem with not factoring in any pro feedback is that you end up with maps where a single pylon lets you cannon rush a zerg, where a reaper can't scout the main base, where overlords can't scout at the start of the game, where BCs and liberators safely get free reign on mineral lines, and where rush distances are way too short (particularly 3rd to 3rd). And when there are no standards set to avoid those problems and consistent QA done you just have to hope that heavily invested players will make the difference.
Pro-players should be used in the latest phase of the judging and mainly used as a tool to improve playability/balance. We should suggest small changes like overlord pillars, reaper jump paths, dead space removal w/e and then the mapmaker can decide to act on those suggestions or not.
On July 12 2021 15:36 oOOoOphidian wrote: The problem with not factoring in any pro feedback is that you end up with maps where a single pylon lets you cannon rush a zerg,
Pros let Oblivion* be a finalist.
No one is arguing against pro feedback. The problem is many of us are not confident in the process of choosing maps, and the incentives don't always line up for pro judges to pick the best maps.
*Oblivion's ramp would have been a minor bug no one remembered if it went through TLMC first before GSL picked it.
On July 12 2021 15:58 Harstem wrote: Pro-players should be used in the latest phase of the judging and mainly used as a tool to improve playability/balance. We should suggest small changes like overlord pillars, reaper jump paths, dead space removal w/e and then the mapmaker can decide to act on those suggestions or not.
A very good take, though I'm not sure every player is on the same page with what features are okay. I agree with your opinion on dead space (you talked about it on stream a few days ago), but others seemed to deduct points for a lack of airspace. As a mapmaker, it's hard to guess what features will get penalized and which ones will pass.
On July 12 2021 15:58 Harstem wrote: Pro-players should be used in the latest phase of the judging and mainly used as a tool to improve playability/balance. We should suggest small changes like overlord pillars, reaper jump paths, dead space removal w/e and then the mapmaker can decide to act on those suggestions or not.
I like this idea a lot, it still keeps progamers involved in the process and puts their knowledge to use but in a way that doesn't make them the sole arbiter of map design.
A very good take, though I'm not sure every player is on the same page with what features are okay. I agree with your opinion on dead space (you talked about it on stream a few days ago), but others seemed to deduct points for a lack of airspace. As a mapmaker, it's hard to guess what features will get penalized and which ones will pass.
Let it be a co-operative effort rather than part of the judging stage and let it be conversational.
While I disagree with the Initial Statement that pros shouldn t be involved in the map picking process At all, I still want to thank OP for bringing awareness to the topic. Harstems and Cats insight and idears where great on this as well, so let s hope that with Blizzard now out of the process, that map makers, shopify, esl and the Players can figure something out together for the next tlmc.
I think we need to stress this out, as many people smarter than me mentioned, letting some bias in the judging phase in favour of the most bland and repetitive maps is going to be very very bad for the longevity of the game.
We need more "golden walls" type of maps to keep SC2 fresh. We are not going to get any more major updates nor new units, the only source of innovation has to come from maps.
On July 12 2021 06:38 ReachTheSky wrote: Pros should never be involved in any map making decisions or map pool decisions or balance decisions because it is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
ROFL, so the people who have by far the best knowledge and by far the best argumentations should not be asked?
You need a proper pool of pros with at best case an equal quota for all races to counteract the conflict of interest, but removing the best input you can get is just a bad idea.
Of course they can have a say, but their involvement should be limited. They are only PROs because there is enough people who care about this game, want to watch it and support it. That is why they make money. With the same maps over and over, game becomes stale and boring.
The PROs are the ones who supply, we are the ones who make the demand, and we all know how supply/demand works, its the same with any other sport.
Moreover the maps are not only for the PROs, lets not discount the other 95% of players.
Even though I agree with the author, this is not only a problem on ladder. GSL trying exclusive maps is a great idea introducing other new maps, however + Show Spoiler +
Parting beating Solar with a one pylon ramp block just took the cake in not testing maps
On July 12 2021 17:10 Argonauta wrote: I think we need to stress this out, as many people smarter than me mentioned, letting some bias in the judging phase in favour of the most bland and repetitive maps is going to be very very bad for the longevity of the game.
We need more "golden walls" type of maps to keep SC2 fresh. We are not going to get any more major updates nor new units, the only source of innovation has to come from maps.
Idk, Golden Wall was kind of an horrendous map both to play and spectate, I'd rather have standard maps. Having weird maps won't rise viewership or anything, it will just be annoying for players and vetoed
On July 12 2021 13:41 [Phantom] wrote: I just want to make one comment and say I think I must have been drinking kool-aid because as far as I remmember 4 player maps were in starcraft for at least 5-6 years, got progressively better and some of the best games of all time were played there. But apparently they can't possibly work.
Yeah, like Frost, right? But back at HotS you had the 6-worker start so the only rush that could have killed you was the 6 pool and even that against a greedy opening. But now? If you have a full proper 4p map and you scout your enemy last? Why scout then, you've already chosen your tech and the enemy as well and you have nothing to scout. And if they chose to do some rush it's already way too late.
4p maps work bad at LotV because of the rushed start. You simply don't have the time to do the proper scouting. And once you force spawns it's technically a 4p map but in reality 2p map (3p if you deny horizontal or vertical spawns only)
On July 12 2021 07:31 KillerSmile wrote: So the contest gets to pick the maps they want and all the unsuccessful mappers get what exactly? Not even a clammy handshake, just a "better luck next time".
That is in general how voluntary stuff works. Do you think Liquipedia contributors get anything out of editing hours and hours every week? What we get is the satisfaction to help the community, document the (competitive) history of the game, the fun wile editing (be it writing lua modules, templates, creating player/team/tournament (and even mapmaker) pages, updating scores, ...) and of course the cool community we have on the Liquipedia discord (across the games/wikis).
You on the other hand even have a contest with prize money. Yeah there for sure is room for improvement, but this crying about everything the whole time (and bashing players/judges while at it) is annoying af in my opinion.
If you are being resentful because of the money I can assure you mapmaking is not cost-efficient. When I tell my non-SC2 friends that I won some money from something that I spend so much time getting good at they're literally making fun of me. It's definitely not enough money for having to deal with death threats over a misplaced doodad that produced a cannon spot.
It's good that you mention satisfaction, because that's what I'm in for it as well, but any behavioural psychologist will tell you that feedback is a big part of staying motivated. Without it participating in the tlmc will sooner or later feel like Sisyphus rolling his boulder up a hill only to see it roll back down with no apparent cause or reason.
Maybe so you don't see this as whining and playerbashing I'll condense it into 2 easy to understand points as to why proper comments and feedback are the solution.
- with comments attached to the maps the judges would have to show the working out of their score, which protects them from being accused of acting in bad faith
- the comments or even the just the scores can communicate to the mapmakers whether they are on the right track or not and they wouldn't have to rely on feedback from other mapmakers that have gotten good at guessing what pro players want over the years
You could argue the pro players have the right to be subjective/arbitrary and don't have to show their working out just on the basis on being authority figures by virtue of their playing proficiency. You could argue that mapmakers should just get good at mapmaking and create a pool of submissions that is as diverse as possible for the judges to choose from.
You can keep arguing. I'm not gonna be here for it. I'm not gonna submit another map until I get feedback on what I create, be it some notes or a video that was to be released by one of the judges.
And if you think you guys can do without me, fine, I'm just one guy. But if you think I'm the only one thinking like this and thoroughly fed up with the contest you're gravely mistaken.
EPT
