|
On October 20 2012 18:01 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
Not sure if I can contribute to this in any way, but I totally support the idea.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 15:25 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 15:20 EatThePath wrote:On October 20 2012 14:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:Why? Also: 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. As far as talent and hard work goes. Players > actual artists > UMS Mappers > Casters > Melee mappers. As far as recognition it seems to go: Casters > Players > Melee Mappers > Actual Artists > UMS Mappers. 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 21 2012 01:03 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +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 21 2012 04:39 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 01:03 NewSunshine wrote: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.
|
Updated a bit of the language in the OP and included the "Recommended Map Pool" idea. Thanks ulfryc!
|
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.
This is the only thing I want to address:
On October 21 2012 07:30 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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. This is the only thing I want to address: Show nested quote +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.
-----------------------------
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. Show nested quote +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 07:57 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +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).
On October 21 2012 07:57 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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 07:57 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +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 07:57 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +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 07:57 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
edit: oops double post. t.t
|
On October 21 2012 08:07 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
//quote chain fix
|
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 UpdateHi 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: New Maps last month, up for testing/voting/discussion: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
