MotM May Results - Page 2

So I wouldn't normally post my complete personal rankings, but I'm not a fan of the motm being posted without any official rankings. So if I was the sole judge of motm these are my rankings:

1. Golden Valley
2. Silver Sands
3. Auir Refuge
4. Dark Shrines
5. Vaha
6. Abode (if it had changes)
7. Prophet's Passage (if the second corner expo (the 7th base) was removed)
8. Nature's Hold
9. Opernicus

I originally had a 10th map, but upon testing it found it to be horrible; I never found a replacement 10th map. Since I have nothing good to say or any suggestions to make about this map, I will omit it.

Vaha's placement is fairly arbitrary. The map isn't uploaded on NA, I don't have any other sc2 regions installed, and the author didn't submit the map file to the motm submission email. So I couldn't play the map, so I couldn't compare it as accurately to the other maps. I expect that I'd like it more than Dark Shrines, but I was able to test Dark Shrines and it felt ok in-game so I've ranked it higher.
My initial thoughts of the map were the following: "Its rocks need removed; the nat is a little poor looking; 4th is probably a little too close, but I like 12/3/6/9 4ths; wish they were a little more neutrally oriented though; map is just too small I think, but generally it's "ok": standard and probably decently playable, it's just not ambitious at all, which I think results from the mapsize: can't really fit proper distances in; the middle is the right size imo, but the distance to 3rds and 4ths is a little short and thus also the distances between players; poor mineral formation and gas placement" Since I couldn't test any of these theoriesI have nothing more to say.

While I didn't get a chance to play any full games on Golden Valley, I played on it in solitude and it felt very comfortable. I like the expo layout and the pathing. While this map isn't particularly interesting (doesn't really differ from standard models) it seems well-made and the concept very well executed. It certainly isn't a clone of any map either.

Silver Sands was the same way as Golden as far as testing went, and it seemed pretty good to me. I had liked it from the picture to begin with. It has an interesting expo layout and is well-made. As I posted previously I don't like how the main can't possibly defend the nat at all. Myself and at least two other judges had some ideas about improving the space management of the map, but I'm told the author didn't like the ideas when one judge suggested them, so I won't bother writing them out. I like Golden better than this map because I think its concept is better executed. The map's space is used more efficiently there as well.

I like Auir Refuge a lot, it just isn't as clean as the previous two. The four bases per player are a little closer to each other than I'd prefer as well. The layout seems good though, and while the map is large it didn't feel too big to me. As with the others above I didn't get to test it extensively though. I'm potentially worried about the fact that you can blink into the nat from the 4th area, though it may not actually matter. The vulnerability of the nat from behind definitely makes or breaks the map. I don't know which way that balance tips though.

Dark Shrines felt surprisingly good in-game (due to its long distances most likely). That being said, it's definitely the weakest map of my top5. The island is almost positively useless (and thus all the space around it as well). The 3rd and 4th are too similar in distance and strategic value. In my game on the map the gameplay focused almost exclusively in the middle between the two 4ths. Harass around the 3rds felt weird. The dynamic between the two sides of the map (top left/bottom right) seems weak. That being said the map still felt fine in-game for the most part, which is why the map places this high in my rankings.

I don't dislike Abode, but I thought it had some serious problems which kept it from being top5 quality. I hate the 1gas expos; it's not even a high yield gas. The two of them are too close together. Neither are particularly good expos, the map should probably be remade in that area. The third seems a little close/boring as well, but as an expo isn't bad. What is bad though imo is that some mineral miners and all geysers/gas miners can be hit by tanks from the highground just outside the 3rd. From a spot on the other side of the ramp of that same highground the cc itself can be hit by tanks. The pathing into that highground is a ramp on either side, and the distance between the opposite side ramp and the expo side is so short that a tank augmented force there could easily just be invincible for a fairly long time. It's strong enough to be a serious imbalance imo. A colos augmented force from the same area could be potentially really strong too, but I didn't test that at all. The pathing on the map naturally takes the top side from right or the bottom side from left, not the central highground path. This means the map effectively has even paths, which is annoying and bad for gameplay. Daybreak can get away with it because of a dynamic caused by the total summation of the map's features that I won't discuss, this map can't imo.

I'm not particularly a fan of Prophet's Passage, but it seems well-made for the most part. As stated above one of the corner expos should be removed. I checked the map very briefly in-game, and it seemed solid, hence its position. Conceptually it's a little too messy for me to be any higher though.

As I posted previously, Nature's hold looked really solid (if very standard) in the picture, but in-game was way too small (and has other space management issues not caused by the map's size).

As I posted previously, Opernicus looks awesome in picture but is very uncomfortable in game. I love its layout and concept, they just aren't executed well.


I know Fantazy got a lot of attention in the thread, and while we all found it very interesting we were all agreed in that it's unplayable. The map should probably be cannibalized for its good features for a new map.


I really don't want to say anything about Doomsday because I have absolutely nothing nice to say, but I feel compelled since it made the top5 (all of the other judges liked it). I don't like speaking out against the other judges because I respect them and their opinions, but I feel too strongly about this map to keep quiet on this occasion. I hope the author doesn't take this personally; I have nothing against them. This map (the first version that was submitted and the new version) is really bad. It has absolutely nothing good about it. It's sloppily made, it has no real concept, its expo layout is attrocious for gameplay, and its pathing in the middle is an absolute mess. I am absolutely baffled as to how the other judges like it. They stated the things I just called bad and said they find them interesting. I'm all for interesting maps which just happen to lack adept execution (e.g. Dodongo from last month), but this map doesn't fit that category. This map is Incineration Zone level (but bigger so as to be even less playable). The changes from the submitted version to the new version make it maybe playable, but more boring/generic (and still without proper execution). The map is just very uncomfortable to play on and brings nothing conceptually new or interesting to mapping or to the gameplay.


Another map that got some attention was Pegasus. I think the map has a lot of good elements, but the way they were fit together is poor imo. I don't like this kind of symmetry typically, and it probably ruined what was conceptually a decent map. It could be better within the symmetry though. The path higher than the main path should have been the main path. The islands don't work imo.



For the few people suggesting the results are biased with favouritism: in my experience of judging across several motm competitions I have not noticed a single blatant example of such bias. I believe the results have always been the honest picks by all the judges. That being said every judge likes and dislikes different map features, layouts, concepts, etc. That every judge is very different brings legitimacy to the competition imo.
+ Show Spoiler [big image] +
This is an example of our judging procedure. This month was hectic so we didn't use the traditional numeric rating system (hence no numbers in the final ranking), but you can clearly see there are no author names. Personally I don't look at the mapping forum often and don't look at the submissions until the competition is up and running. I don't know the authors of any map. From my experience no other judge takes into consideration the author or mapping team for ranking maps either. This may not be a perfect competition, but I do believe it's a fair one. I fail to see any evidence for such bias.