|
On October 23 2012 01:42 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Samro225am wrote:On October 23 2012 01:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 23 2012 01:24 NewSunshine wrote:
One of the major points being presented, which challenges this idea of unity and council, has been the idea that we can generally agree that the current map pool is stale, but what to replace it with? Of course this is one of the challenges that would face the council, in part that's why it would exist. A group of members would be assembled to promote mapmaking in general, and more specifically every map made on a monthly basis. I struggle to imagine an entity that does such a thing, yet cannot come to a reasonable consensus on which maps are best, the end result being that we're bringing the mapmaking community into focus, vaguely, which just sounds stupid. The point of this is to make things easier for the uncommitted to take in, and if a panel of judges can agree which maps are best for MotM(for instance), then I don't see how the same cannot be accomplished here. To further extremify your point, in a lot of MotM's juries at all couldn't agree which map was the best if you see the scores. They just take the average in the end and end up being pretty divided. I really feel NASL or IPL are our best shot, they were wiling to try out new maps before, open a dialogue with them to see if you can make something happen. NASL loves to add 'segments', I feel a segment to invite progamers to play showmatches on new maps to get them in the public eye would be a great start. possibly the starting point for such a request towards any league than would be (1.) an open discussion here what maps should be included or (2.) what kind of maps are needed and therefore should be specifically produced(!) as well as a council-thing taken shape, e.g. person stepping up who are willing to attend the process and lead the discussion with tournament-organizers as the chosen melee map making representative(s). Well, honestly, the maps themselves aren't even that important since they can showcase one basically every week, it'd just be really cool if they actually did it. A showmatch on community maps between two pros every week to give them exposure. NASL seems like the kind of league that is in for this kind of stuff to me so gogogog Diamond, open a dialogue and don't call them retarded on twitter. there are not nearly enough good maps for a weekly imo. There is the danger that too experimental maps or too boring maps and even badly constructed or looking maps are a turn-off for players and audience alike. I beg to differ, it's called 'map of the month', you can get the top 4 of each month as a manner of speaking and be fine.
If you want you can make it a biweekly, of course it's open to tuning.
|
I didn't read every post on the previous page, but why would people who don't play the game, who only watch streams, be adverse to the idea of improving mappool circulation? It isn't a positive instance fallacy to only point out complaints people have against the static mappool if there are literally no instances of people complaining the mappool is changing too much. Who wants the mappool to not change? How does anyone benefit by the current situation? It was well understood in the past that one of the big components of broodwar's longevity, especially relative to warcraft3, was its changing and dynamic mappool. Yes, Lost Temple, Python, Fighting Spirit, and to a lesser degree Destination were easily the most-played maps over all time, which could be construed as supporting the claim that most people don't want a changing mappool, but I don't recall ever hearing anyone say "the proscene sucks, they keep playing new and interesting maps, why don't they just play Python?". It was exciting because they rotated the mappool.
The entire sc2 scene's mappool doesn't need to be completely changed frequently; that it doesn't change much lets the effect of metagame changes and balance patches be analyzed; the degree of stability within the mappool helps the players and blizzard in that regard. Additionally, that open tournaments like the Playhem Daily and MLG are accessible to literally anyone in the community by having a relatively static mappool is also good. The metagame however trickles down from the top, and for there to be a good rate of change (which keeps the game exciting and growing) the mappool there must change. There definitely needs to be a balance between changing the mappool and keeping the mappool relevant for the average sc player/viewer. However I think the balance is too far in the static direction. The top tournaments are being held back by the ladder pool being so unchanging. Blizzard has only really changed the ladder pool to correspond with dragging behind the GSL though, so clearly for the ladder pool to be altered the top tournaments' pools must change first. Of course if top tournaments' mappools change too much, the average players won't have enough in common with the progamers anymore to give a shit, and that's an end we must avoid at all costs.
edit: At broodwarmaps.net for a very long time we ran the Map of the Week competition, and it was successful. This was basically in the golden age of foreign mapping, when it was possible for foreign maps to get into PGT and WGT. Eventually we turned it into a Map of the Month competition because it made the selection process more competetive. Some weeks would be incredibly stacked, and others would have nothing worth voting for, and as activity lulled in the dark age of foreign mapping (before iccup began to accept foreign maps into their pool) we changed it to the MOTM, which was more successful. Rather than being strictly rigid, while we aimed for a top3 per month, with the #1 being the "winner", in months with a higher number of excellent (and more importantly, more than 3 well-voted-for maps, as it was to my discontent, strictly democratic) maps, we recognized more in the newsposts, as "honourable mentions". Still, some months were weak as well, and often the #2 map from the previous month would win the next month. From my experience at judging the sc2 MOTMs here, and seeing how many maps worth considering appear each month, I'd say MOTM is still appropriate. There has never been a month I judged where there were more than 10 maps I even took a second glance at. Sometimes it was hard to pick a personal top5 even, and not because there were more than 5 maps I couldn't decide between.
edit2: Oh also, sometimes it took the whole next month just to figure out who won last month (during broodwar). We didn't have a Monitor to whip us into getting a move on choosing and writing up newsposts~
|
tbh, usually theres only 1, max 2 maps worth playing. maybe a few more if there hasn't been a motm in a while :D
|
On October 23 2012 01:17 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:59 OxyGenesis wrote:On October 23 2012 00:16 SiskosGoatee wrote:On October 22 2012 23:44 a176 wrote:On October 22 2012 19:49 OxyGenesis wrote:
I would like to propose an alternative to the 'Monthly Spotlight' idea that I feel helps alleviate some of the issues that have been discussed.
Rather than highlighting a group of maps from a designated time period, why not highlight a single exceptional map that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested and is deemed tournament ready? I believe that this would help with the following issues.:- my issue is defining being 'deemed tournament ready' (which also relates to your point 1). this has always been a point of contention even across selectees, comparing say TLMC results to MotM results, people have clear distinctions over what they agree is a competent, exceptional map. and that doesn't even include the opinions of tournament organizers and players who are usually far, far, far more critical (unless shoved down their throats by blizzard, of course). Well, it's going to be subjective anyway when you come to this. What is a good map and not in the end is inherently subjective. To let out a little secret, I actually love Antiga Shipyard, I love playing on it, I love the games it creates, I love watching it. I like the difficulty in establishing a fourth and the strength of drops and multi pronged attacks on this map, the importance of centre control. It's an unpopular opinion for sure, but can you say I'm wrong and therefore don't understand the game? Leenock and Stephano have both said they love Antiga as well, do they not understand the game? This is sort of the downwards map pool problem, which maps are bad is pretty subjective, the upwards map pool problem is even worse, which maps are to replace those maps? People are divided on that even more. On October 23 2012 00:13 OxyGenesis wrote:
MLG are so slow to change their map pool because they don't think it matters very much. They are wrong. I'm sorry, but you are very naïve if you think that this stuff is not carefully weighed in meetings between people who have all the numbers to debate this. MLG is an actual company which has investors to answer to. Let's not forget that MLG was the first tournament who modified maps to give ramps a different footprint to stop lowground wallins (bad for viewership) even before neutral depots were introduced. They are very much aware of such issues and weigh their choices carefully. Edit: even so, let's say they believe it doesn't matter. I will believe them over you if it comes to a yes no game. They have built from nothing one of the biggest esports leagues out there today. They know what they are doing and how to make their league attractive, you have no such experience or results to speak for them. Ohh you're the guy I was debating on reddit? That explains a lot  What? No I don't think we ever debated anything on reddit. I do have an account there but I'm not active. I do not remember you. (unless you have another nickname therE) Show nested quote +MLG's experience means that they know all about competitive gaming. They know that an unfair competition is incredibly bad for a tournament. Did you see the tournament format of the MLG vs Proleague? It's practically rigged.. it's designed to guarantee 4 NA players and 8 KesPA players a seed. It's the opposite of fair, and no doubt designed with that in mind. Unfair competition doesn't do a lot for viewer numbers I'm afraid in the end. We're talking about people who keep the extended series in despite massive complaint. Show nested quote +They probably went to players/teams when they first decided to have an SC2 tournament and asked them what maps were balanced and built the map pool around that. After a while they probably felt that they had a balanced pool and moved on to other priorities. I'm not overly familiar with MLG's past but how many RTS games have they had before? They made a name for themselves with Halo tournaments, and maps in a halo competition have a very different role to in an RTS. In Halo, you can look at stats like 'which team wins more often on this map?' and judge from that whether the map is a good one. That's probably what Sundance wanted when he wrote that tweet. In SC2, the stats don't tell you the whole story. Because of the strategy in SC2, the way a map plays out is just as important as the stats. Maps getting too 'figured out' is a problem because it creates stale samey play. I'm afraid sundance cares about viewer numbers and nothing more. If a map is statistically likely to generate a lot of VOD views he keeps it, if it doesn´t he removes it. Show nested quote +At the end of the day neither you nor I know why MLG refuse to update their map pool because they don't say why. You can say 'I trust them, they are one of the largest eSports companies in the world, they know what they are doing'. I can say 'I wish MLG would introduce new maps in to the pool as I love seeing how players play out new maps' and we can both be 'right'. They know what they are doing in regardes to maximizing viewers which is all they care about, they don't care for fairness, the bizarre nature of their qualifiers and their pool play stuff demonstrates they care about viewer numbers, not fairness. They have the most convoluted and unfair tournament structures designed by man simply to maximize viewer numbers. The only reason pool play exists is so that you can have HuK vs Parting on the first day of playing rather than HuK or Parting versus some unknown signup in the open bracket. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:02 Samro225am wrote:
I have difficulties seeing a relation between a subjectively motivated request (OxyGenesis) for a faster map rotation and your remark on how MLG is a professional run league and a forum user being less experienced than MLG... I believe MLG's slower rotation is deliberate and what he believes gives him more viewers. As outlined before, a general trend is noticeable: - Small weekend tournaments seldom introduce new maps. - Large tournaments spanning a month or two tend to introduce new maps. (GSL, NASL, IPTL) An obvious explanation to this is that players do not have the time to learn new maps for one small tournament week with no guarantee that map will remain popular and tournaments are therefore afraid that less notable players will sign up. Show nested quote +To be honest, I would love to see more map rotation and think watching would have more appeal for experienced followers as well as newbies watchers. Also it would be good for the game to have maps that are not 100% "played through". I was so happy about atlantis spaceship and cloud kingdom being used as they are two of the best custom maps out there. I like CK, I don't like Atlantis Spacebear, which is a controversial map, it's clear from casts that Artosis doesn't like it and considers it to big and too bad for Terran. Even though statistically this isn't true and there seems to be a very shallow correlation at best between large maps and being bad for Terran.
Of course MLG care about things other than viewing figures (And you call me naive)
They care about money, they care about viewer satisfaction, they care about player satisfaction, they care about business ethics, they care about fairness, they care about long-term development, they care about cheating, they care about a whole bunch of things with many varying degrees of care. You could say that they only care about some of those things because they affect the amount of viewers they have, I could say that they only care about the amount of viewers they have because it makes them more money, Someone else could say that they only care about money because it enables them to keep doing what they love doing. The point is that you can't dissolve these things down to 1 issue because they are all inter-related.
Maps are something that are fundamental to the SC2 experience, whether you are a viewer or a player, therefore they are something that MLG should care about. I, and many others, believe that they currently don't care as much as they should.
I agree that MLG are at this point probably the least likely tournament to introduce new maps, which is a shame as they previously used Testbug. How did we get on to the subject of MLG again?
I guess you weren't the same guy I was debating on reddit, He just used the exactly same Antiga Stephano/Leenock line 
|
On October 23 2012 02:04 OxyGenesis wrote:
Of course MLG care about things other than viewing figures (And you call me naive)
They care about money, they care about viewer satisfaction, they care about player satisfaction, they care about business ethics, they care about fairness, they care about long-term development, they care about cheating, they care about a whole bunch of things with many varying degrees of care. You could say that they only care about some of those things because they affect the amount of viewers they have, I could say that they only care about the amount of viewers they have because it makes them more money, Someone else could say that they only care about money because it enables them to keep doing what they love doing. The point is that you can't dissolve these things down to 1 issue because they are all inter-related.
Maps are something that are fundamental to the SC2 experience, whether you are a viewer or a player, therefore they are something that MLG should care about. I, and many others, believe that they currently don't care as much as they should. Sure, sure. But as I said, I don't believe that you understand better how to run Sundance's business than he does. Maybe I missed something but you don't really have the experience in running such a large scale tournament and neither do most people here?
People here are also biased, they want an updated map pool, they're mappers. People believe what they want to be true in the end, that an updated map pool is good for MLG, this might not be true. Sundance doesn't seem to agree to a large extend.
I agree that MLG are at this point probably the least likely tournament to introduce new maps, which is a shame as they previously used Testbug. How did we get on to the subject of MLG again?
I guess you weren't the same guy I was debating on reddit, He just used the exactly same Antiga Stephano/Leenock line
Then again, Stephano's opinion about balance is madness. He'd continue to say Zerg is overpowered versus Protoss if storm one shot brood lords.
|
On October 23 2012 02:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:04 OxyGenesis wrote:
Of course MLG care about things other than viewing figures (And you call me naive)
They care about money, they care about viewer satisfaction, they care about player satisfaction, they care about business ethics, they care about fairness, they care about long-term development, they care about cheating, they care about a whole bunch of things with many varying degrees of care. You could say that they only care about some of those things because they affect the amount of viewers they have, I could say that they only care about the amount of viewers they have because it makes them more money, Someone else could say that they only care about money because it enables them to keep doing what they love doing. The point is that you can't dissolve these things down to 1 issue because they are all inter-related.
Maps are something that are fundamental to the SC2 experience, whether you are a viewer or a player, therefore they are something that MLG should care about. I, and many others, believe that they currently don't care as much as they should. Sure, sure. But as I said, I don't believe that you understand better how to run Sundance's business than he does. Maybe I missed something but you don't really have the experience in running such a large scale tournament and neither do most people here? People here are also biased, they want an updated map pool, they're mappers. People believe what they want to be true in the end, that an updated map pool is good for MLG, this might not be true. Sundance doesn't seem to agree to a large extend. Show nested quote +I agree that MLG are at this point probably the least likely tournament to introduce new maps, which is a shame as they previously used Testbug. How did we get on to the subject of MLG again? Because I keep bringing him up because Sundance is such a catchy name. Show nested quote +I guess you weren't the same guy I was debating on reddit, He just used the exactly same Antiga Stephano/Leenock line I guess because Stephano and Leenock are both known to like that map and casters often talk about how they keep saying they like it even though it's popularly perceived as a bad ZvT map. "TvZ: 282-290 (49.3%)" ain't that bad though. Then again, Stephano's opinion about balance is madness. He'd continue to say Zerg is overpowered versus Protoss if storm one shot brood lords.
If I was the only one to hold the opinion that MLG needed to update their map pool then I might agree but I'm not, I'm one of many many people. MLG is aimed at me, they want my money. I am less likely to give them money because I prefer other tournaments. When a tournament introduces a new map it makes me more interested in that tournament because I like to see how players adapt to said map. And that's not because I'm a mapper, it's because I'm interested in strategy.
I'm not going to go in to debating Antiga because honestly, the last one damn-near killed me. I will merely reiterate what I said before, that stats don't tell you the whole story.
|
On October 23 2012 01:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:24 NewSunshine wrote:
One of the major points being presented, which challenges this idea of unity and council, has been the idea that we can generally agree that the current map pool is stale, but what to replace it with? Of course this is one of the challenges that would face the council, in part that's why it would exist. A group of members would be assembled to promote mapmaking in general, and more specifically every map made on a monthly basis. I struggle to imagine an entity that does such a thing, yet cannot come to a reasonable consensus on which maps are best, the end result being that we're bringing the mapmaking community into focus, vaguely, which just sounds stupid. The point of this is to make things easier for the uncommitted to take in, and if a panel of judges can agree which maps are best for MotM(for instance), then I don't see how the same cannot be accomplished here. To further extremify your point, in a lot of MotM's juries at all couldn't agree which map was the best if you see the scores. They just take the average in the end and end up being pretty divided.
To go back to this point(it's pretty important):
Of course the views on any given map are going to be divided, from one judge to another. It's why we have more than one judge each time. No map is going to be universally seen as great. Whirlwind for instance is acclaimed by many and is a very solid map in many ways, but I find it a boring and static map that doesn't do anything new. It's our task as a community to put our thoughts together, voice our concerns, and come up with a verdict that represents the entire community as accurately as possible. If we don't do it, who does?
|
On October 22 2012 18:00 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 00:32 EatThePath wrote:
I may come back and write something more detailed later. There has been a lot of discussion since my last post. But I want to address two things that are sort of related.
You don't need to discuss me as a council member in order to illustrate your problems with the council idea in an emblematic way. I don't really want to be on the council; don't denounce the council idea because you have a problem with me (and/or I have a problem with you). Indeed, however, you were nominated which sort of illustrates, at least to me, the fundamental communication problem with this scene: 1: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that MLG, Blizzard etc don't make certain map pool and map changes due to stupidity or ignorance. As the tweet Timetwister linked showed. Sundance is well aware that there is a group of people who are displeased with his map pool. As the tweet also illustrated, he doesn't per se agree but is willing to listen. MLG and Blizzard are not stupid you know, they have built pretty large organizations, they know what they are doing, the reasoning behind their map pools and lack of neutral depots is not stupidity and ignorance, rather, it guards an ulterior purpose. 2: The overwhelming conception in the mapmaking scene seems to be that the vast majority of fans actually care about this perceived problem with map pools. I highly doubt that, majority of viewers has no understanding or a lot of thought put into it. A very large portion of viewers doesn't even play the game but just enjoys to watch casually. It's like complaining about the grass quality of a football field. The majority of viewers just don't think about it and don't care. MLG is well aware that a lot of people exist that think there are problems with his map pool, indeed, Diamond tweets this to him (aggressively) every other week. It is simply his opinion to respectfully disagree from a chiefly commercial perspective. This council may be able to advice him on what is a 'good map pool' for your definition of 'good map', but are you confident to say you can advice him on a map pool which brings him the most revenue? That is what he cares about, he has investors to answer to. I mean, take MLG versus Proleague, most people would argue it's a 'bad tournament', it was practically rigged to give an unfair advantage to NA players, it's a complete farce and a spit on the spirit of fair competition. Does Sundance care? Maybe he does somewhere but he likes viewer numbers more than fair competition. It ensures 3 things: 4 NA players in pool play, and 8 KeSPA players in pool play, and a KeSPA vs non KeSPA players in the finals, exactly what he believes will benefit his viewing numbers. Likewise, I have a feeling that tournaments are hesitant to try new maps because viewers don't quite like new maps as much as mapmakers do.
Sisko, you continue to not get it. Your arguments are derivatives of your point that we don't get it. It seems we are at an impasse. But I will do my best to explain why you don't get it, why we do get it, and maybe we can talk about that.
First, I don't want to focus on me, but Barrin gave me a friendly nod which is causing you anxiety I guess. So far that is representative of 1-2 people, hardly representative of the map scene. (Of which you're a part btw.) And I said I don't even want to be on the council if there is one, despite supporting the idea. If anything I stand for one thing, which is map rotation.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OfEp0.png)
Sisko, where are you on this chart? I can only believe you want map rotation, otherwise you wouldn't be on this forum let alone taking part in this discussion. But you act like it's a crime to want new maps and try to make it happen. Just look at your first post in this thread.
If you don't think this idea will work, why? I know, Sundance hates fun. What else? This isn't about MLG. I agree that they are not a good target for map rotation efforts. They are the late consensus adopters of maps. This whole MLG discussion is a diversion.
What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.)
If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there?
That said, there are certainly pitfalls to avoid if we are right in our motivation and we want succeed. Discussing those issues, thumbs up. (cough iamcaustic cough. also hydroponic...)
--------------------
There is one central issue that keeps recurring that I think we should try to decide on. It has been said in different ways, but the crux is that to advocate maps, replacement candidates will have to be selected. Mapping is an imperfect science, understood imperfectly, so how are we going to choose the best candidates?
Let me pose a question. Will any of the candidates be any worse (as maps) than the worst map currently used in the pool of maps commonly used by all tournaments? If we are confident the answer is "no", then it doesn't matter whether the candidate map is objectively the best out of all the options. That is impossible to know; indeed how could a map be "best"?
Of course we should try to advocate the best possible maps -- that is best for everyone involved. But we don't have to be perfect. The goal isn't perfect maps. The goal is map rotation.
GSL is the only source of new maps besides Blizzard and the TLMC. I think everyone in SC2 would agree Blizzard has been lackluster at best. The TLMC must be recognized as a successful venture. GSL maps are received well enough while providing steady progress in this area.
Has the combination of these things achieved the map rotation and map quality we want? For us, definitely no. For the wider community, perhaps. Is it enough for SC2 as an esport, or does it need to get better? That's an open question, though I assume most of us would argue that it needs to get better for long term viability.
In consideration of the foregoing, then, it would have to be said that we need something besides the above 3 things (of which TLMC is an anomaly, a one-off). That is why there should be a mechanism for community maps to supplement the current map rotation schema. A schema, I might add, that is the result of complacency, not design.
So, the other goal is to create a mechanism to include community maps in the map rotation process.
-----------------
Obviously this will not happen overnight. But it's foolish to say that first we need to prove that people want new maps and that new maps are needed. We don't need to prove community support, we need to harness community support.
That is why my personal vision of this idea Timetwister brought up is to leverage the new tools we will soon have for melee map custom games and the spirit of reevaluation and renewal coinciding with the imminence of the HotS expansion. The time is ripe to provide the launchpad for the community to take ownership of the cause of new and better maps. They need to realize their voice will make a difference by taking notice of and participating in the map vetting and testing process. Our voice, of course, will never be successful on its own. The only real success we've enjoyed so far was due to TL speaking for us in the map contest.
People at large don't give a shit about maps right now because there's nothing to give a shit about. It's hardly noticeable in the first place and it doesn't lead anywhere. The first thing we have to change is that it's noticeable. The second thing we have to change is that it leads somewhere. If people see that, even just the potential of it, they may help; we may have a serious contingent of custom game players who put new maps through their paces and tell it on the mountain that Tal'Darim Altar needs to go and New Map XYZ needs to replace it, instead of just inscrutable smoke signals from a map forum pow-wow.
Anecdote: I have a lot of b.net friends and acquaintances in NA masters that love playing on new maps I show them. But they can't take it seriously because they know it'll never mean anything. That's what we need to change. We need to take away the dead certainty that playing custom games is meaningless. A recommended maps bulletin in tandem with a spiel encouraging play and feedback in a new way is the best thing I can think of.
I sort of wrote this like an inspirational speech. That's not an accident, because I do kind of feel that way and I think it's the most effective way to communicate my ideas, but it's also not completely serious in my heart of hearts. I have plenty of doubt that this will ever work. But if it is going to work it has to present a front of buoyant optimism and unshakeable confidence. That doesn't mean we have to promise the world and insist it's possible, when we aren't and it might not be. The beginning will be "we recommend these maps" with some in-depth verbage and "come join us in the new custom games menu, make these maps popular so other people will find them too, and make your voice heard". It won't produce results at first. After a few months, possibly with some spotlight help from TL and some conversation from high-profile personalities, it could catch on. That's all I'm saying.
It could.
Do you have a better idea?
--------------
I want to address choosing maps and leaving people out and competing philosophies of what's in a good map, but this is enough for now.
|
I agree with Samro that there are not good maps being produced regularly, but there are huge number of good maps that have been produced over time.
I think that the council's goal should not be to promote new maps, but to promote the best maps. And while this is somewhat subjective, I would be completely willing to support a decision by Nightmarjoo, Barrin, monitor, prodiG, etc. That's the whole point of deciding on a council. We will vote for/put in people that we trust to make good decisions, even if those decisions are completely subjective. We should try to account for a variety of positions within the community, and certainly not all of them should be map makers, but most of them should be because pretty much anybody that cares for the quality of maps has spent time here.
I also think that it should not be called a union... using Siskos' reaction as evidence.
|
On October 23 2012 08:08 RFDaemoniac wrote:
I also think that it should not be called a union... using Siskos' reaction as evidence.
The word unity has popped up here and there, I personally like that as an alternative. It doesn't have the connotation that union does, but it still describes exactly what this is.
The TeamLiquid Mapmaking Unity(?)
Cut out the word union though, and options are limited, so not much else has hit me.
|
I liked TeamLiquid Map Council
plays off of TLMC and really emphasizes that this is just a group of people that do some shit, which it is.
|
On October 23 2012 05:11 EatThePath wrote:
Sisko, where are you on this chart? I can only believe you want map rotation Indeed, I want it.
But you act like it's a crime to want new maps and try to make it happen. Just look at your first post in this thread. Nope, as said before, I was talking to the actual manifesto, which is not talking about that as Barrin pointed out, it's talking about mostly giving recognition and prestige to mapmakers. Which I think is a bit over the top.
If you don't think this idea will work, why? I know, Sundance hates fun. What else? This isn't about MLG. I agree that they are not a good target for map rotation efforts. They are the late consensus adopters of maps. This whole MLG discussion is a diversion. Tournaments in general, do not seem to believe that rapid map rotation is a good thing for their viewernumbers and their business, that's all.
If you believe that it is good for them, you will have a hard time convincing them of that because they will see mapmakers as inherently having a conflict of interest regarding that idea.
What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.) I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run. Indeed, we are indeed united in that the map pool needs to change, we are however not united in the fact which maps need to go, and by which they need to be replaced. Which makes an advisory board that can speak for 'all of us' a difficult to achieve reality.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there? Not at all, some people have just said that there are better ways to achieve what you want to achieve and it's best to focus your efforts there.
About this whole 'objectivity' thing. I didn't originally want to open this can of worms but here we go: The mapmaking community styles itself authoritative of what is a 'good map', let's just for sake of argument assume that such a thing exists. Tournaments are not interested in 'good maps', they are interested in 'maps that give them more viewers'. The issue at hand is, are these in fact one and the same? If so, can you prove to them that they are? That's the important part. Can you prove for instance that a MotM winner is likely to be a map which generates viewer numbers?
ESV styles itself as the premier foreign mapmaking team, maybe they are, but they had only 2 maps to penetrate mainstream tournament circulation, and those two maps would not have if it were not for the TL Mapmaking contest, The third winner, Korhal Compound, was eventually removed from the ladder because it was not picked up by tournaments all that much. So you will get this nasty discussion with tournaments organisers.
- Diamond: We are the premier foreign mapmaking team, you should use our maps.
- Tournament Organizer: How so? Why are you so good? You have only made 2 maps to penetrate tournament circulation, and that was purely because of the TL mapping contest, why should I trust that you have it in you to create successful maps rather than just using what I know is good already?
- D: The only reason we haven't penetrated is because you refuse to rotate!
- TO: The only reason we don't rotate is because you don't give us maps that are shown to be able to penetrate!
And then you get this nasty circular argument from there on. This is the 'circlejerk' of the mapmaking community, where the 'circle' is very important. These people hold themselves authoritative on what are good maps, but they have no numerical hard data or results to back it up, it's a circle, they say 'We won a MotM!', tournament organizer replies 'Yeah, but those judges were again similar people who haven't proven to us that they can have the foresight to predict which maps are going to be popular before it happens. It's in that sense an enclosed circle without outside entropy
What they want is for you to demonstrate that you have the capacity to predict which maps are going to be great and popular before it happens, then you demonstrate your authority and ability to see which maps are their version of 'good', as in, giving viewer numbers.
Now, are you even capable of that let alone being able to proof it? How many of us predicted accurately a couple of things:
- Crossfire is massively ZvP favoured, not the other way around.
- Metropolis is a big arse turtle fest
- Terminus turned out to be very TvZ favoured instead of the other way around what people expected.
I'm going to admit that I did not anticipate any of this when these maps first came out. Especially the crossfire point, it turned out to be the inverse of what people expected, it turned out to be a very bad protoss map. Therefore, we, the people that expected it to be a good protoss map are not authoritative in the eyes of TO's.
Basically, you people tweet at him every other day 'Antiga Shipyard is a terrible map and TvZ imbalanced', TO's look at the stats and see it's very balanced for TvZ and he thinks 'These people clearly don't know what they're talking about, why should I risk my business over this by listening to them?'
|
On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.) I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
Indeed you have given suggestions, and they are for the most part shared between us. On the other hand, getting hung up on the word "Union" isn't helping anything. Once is enough to make us aware of the possible connotations, you've done it umpteen times, but it's difficult to count as this thread is quite dense.
Show nested quote +If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run. Indeed, we are indeed united in that the map pool needs to change, we are however not united in the fact which maps need to go, and by which they need to be replaced. Which makes an advisory board that can speak for 'all of us' a difficult to achieve reality.
You have this backwards, you think that somehow because we will inherently disagree, that the council will do nothing and is pointless. Consider for a moment that opposing views are essential, and that discussing them all allows us to reach the most complete consensus possible. If all the council members shared exactly the same view, those with other opinions would get shafted. We must first converse these opposing views, and reach detailed discussion about individual maps, and the council's myriad views on each map, which we have not had yet. This is a reason to start using a mapmaking council, not a reason to abort its creation.
Show nested quote +In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there? Not at all, some people have just said that there are better ways to achieve what you want to achieve and it's best to focus your efforts there. About this whole 'objectivity' thing. I didn't originally want to open this can of worms but here we go: The mapmaking community styles itself authoritative of what is a 'good map', let's just for sake of argument assume that such a thing exists. Tournaments are not interested in 'good maps', they are interested in 'maps that give them more viewers'. The issue at hand is, are these in fact one and the same? If so, can you prove to them that they are? That's the important part. Can you prove for instance that a MotM winner is likely to be a map which generates viewer numbers?
Again, you have what appears to be a backwards conception of the problem, and its proposed solution. Nobody can determine the perfect map just as nobody can create the perfect map. We are not searching for perfection, we are searching for assimilation, we are searching for a healthy map rotation. As for judging the qualities of a map, we have a diverse community of skilled mapmakers, if we aren't the ones to decide the merits of a map, then who are? Spectators? They probably don't appreciate the gameplay-related minutiae of a map like we do. Pros? They're biased towards themselves and their own race; they're playing for money, and to win. Blizzard? I shouldn't have to say this. Tournament Organizers? They're probably as unqualified for the job as an average spectator. As skilled melee mapmakers it is our duty to study this game constantly, not only keeping our eyes on the metagame but also studying the way all extant map features influence gameplay as we know it. We cannot do a perfect job however, that's not the point. How can we strive for perfection when we don't even have chance one? You see the end of the road, the ideal result, and fault this Unity for not being able to provide it right away, and summarily dismiss the idea. This is a support, a stepping stone, and in no way a hindrance. You claim to be for map rotation, but criticize to no end(as opposed to supporting) our first true concerted effort to bring about this change. Bringing up potential concerns and addressing them is one thing, but you appear to be arguing simply to defeat the Union. Please clarify if I'm incorrect, as I wish to dispel any misconceptions on either side.
|
On October 23 2012 13:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:What should we do instead of a map advisory function? You have contributed nothing productive to answer this question, which makes me question if you even want map rotation or care about mapping, if you think it's important to competitive SC2 (like it was in BW), if you're just having fun arguing for its own sake to the point of going off topic. (I don't hold it against you that you have contributed "nothing productive", that's fine, I'm just trying to lay out my argument. If I missed something please point it out.) I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments. Indeed you have given suggestions, and they are for the most part shared between us. On the other hand, getting hung up on the word "Union" isn't helping anything. Once is enough to make us aware of the possible connotations, you've done it umpteen times, but it's difficult to count as this thread is quite dense. Show nested quote +If any one idea is common between the users in the map forum on this competitive gaming website, it is that pro SC2 needs better maps and a regular rotation of maps in order to succeed in the long run, or even to survive for a shot at the long run. Indeed, we are indeed united in that the map pool needs to change, we are however not united in the fact which maps need to go, and by which they need to be replaced. Which makes an advisory board that can speak for 'all of us' a difficult to achieve reality. You have this backwards, you think that somehow because we will inherently disagree, that the council will do nothing and is pointless. Consider for a moment that opposing views are essential, and that discussing them all allows us to reach the most complete consensus possible. If all the council members shared exactly the same view, those with other opinions would get shafted. We must first converse these opposing views, and reach detailed discussion about individual maps, and the council's myriad views on each map, which we have not had yet. This is a reason to start using a mapmaking council, not a reason to abort its creation. Show nested quote +In any case, it doesn't really matter whether the idea is popular or not among the wider SC2 community, or if it's business-model-friendly. The need for it should speak for itself to those who agree. If we're right, and things change to include more meaningful map rotation, then great. If we're wrong, and no one agrees with us, what we do will never take off and nothing will change, and everything is fine. There is literally nothing to gain by saying "you guys are wrong and no one else cares"; nothing is at stake for "everyone else". Is there? Not at all, some people have just said that there are better ways to achieve what you want to achieve and it's best to focus your efforts there. About this whole 'objectivity' thing. I didn't originally want to open this can of worms but here we go: The mapmaking community styles itself authoritative of what is a 'good map', let's just for sake of argument assume that such a thing exists. Tournaments are not interested in 'good maps', they are interested in 'maps that give them more viewers'. The issue at hand is, are these in fact one and the same? If so, can you prove to them that they are? That's the important part. Can you prove for instance that a MotM winner is likely to be a map which generates viewer numbers? Again, you have what appears to be a backwards conception of the problem, and its proposed solution. Nobody can determine the perfect map just as nobody can create the perfect map. We are not searching for perfection, we are searching for assimilation, we are searching for a healthy map rotation. As for judging the qualities of a map, we have a diverse community of skilled mapmakers, if we aren't the ones to decide the merits of a map, then who are? Spectators? They probably don't appreciate the gameplay-related minutiae of a map like we do. Pros? They're biased towards themselves and their own race; they're playing for money, and to win. Blizzard? I shouldn't have to say this. Tournament Organizers? They're probably as unqualified for the job as an average spectator. As skilled melee mapmakers it is our duty to study this game constantly, not only keeping our eyes on the metagame but also studying the way all extant map features influence gameplay as we know it. We cannot do a perfect job however, that's not the point. How can we strive for perfection when we don't even have chance one? You see the end of the road, the ideal result, and fault this Unity for not being able to provide it right away, and summarily dismiss the idea. This is a support, a stepping stone, and in no way a hindrance. You claim to be for map rotation, but criticize to no end(as opposed to supporting) our first true concerted effort to bring about this change. Bringing up potential concerns and addressing them is one thing, but you appear to be arguing simply to defeat the Union. Please clarify if I'm incorrect, as I wish to dispel any misconceptions on either side. You don't understand, the point is that unless you can prove that your assesments of what good maps are are accurate, tournament organizers will never listen to your suggestions. They aren't going to risk their viewership over your suggestions unless you can show that you were in the past and that you can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular.
|
On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments.
Okay. ^^
On October 23 2012 14:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
You don't understand, the point is that unless you can prove that your assesments of what good maps are are accurate, tournament organizers will never listen to your suggestions. They aren't going to risk their viewership over your suggestions unless you can show that you were in the past and that you can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular.
This doesn't make any sense. First of all, NASL and IPL have trusted mapmakers and used their maps already. And there's a process of vetting anyway so show some stats, so it's not just believe what one person says "here use this map". The reason it didn't work well is because the pros avoid new maps if they can, so it's pointless to put new maps in a tournament unless everyone is playing the map anyway. That's why GSL is the only tournament in a position to use new maps. That and Blizzard's ladder.
Apparently, by your logic, we trust Blizzard to make maps, since theirs have been the majority of tournament staples. And yet their track record isn't that great.
Maps will get put into the drag-their-feet-about-it tournaments when everyone likes them, which will happen if they get noticed and played. That was the whole point of my previous post, not sure if you noticed.
Your suggestion(?) that we need to prove our map competence will never happen anyway, so you might as well be saying that it's impossible and we should give up, hence the first part of that post addressed specifically to you.
I also addressed "objective" map selection. The point is that it doesn't really matter, we can rotate in comparable maps, probably better maps. Also according to your logic, maps don't need to be balanced or good or the things we care about, just some special and apparently unrelated "viewer-boosting" property.
How many of us predicted accurately a couple of things:
- Crossfire is massively ZvP favoured, not the other way around.
- Metropolis is a big arse turtle fest
- Terminus turned out to be very TvZ favoured instead of the other way around what people expected.
For the record, these were not that hard to see. But Terminus and Crossfire are bad examples because the metagame was still in full development over their tenures. Not that this matters, you used off the cuff examples and we could pick and choose all day.
-------------
I will reiterate, the TLMC was successful in everything we want to achieve. And it had basically all the problems you are pointing out. So why would an advisory committee suffer for them when the TLMC didn't?
|
On October 23 2012 16:17 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:I have given plenty suggestions. I pointed out an advisory structure for a site of such an organization, I pointed out that calling it a union is a mistake and it should get another name. I pointed out how the NASL could potentially be used to achieve this idea because they like segments. Okay. ^^ Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 14:41 SiskosGoatee wrote:
You don't understand, the point is that unless you can prove that your assesments of what good maps are are accurate, tournament organizers will never listen to your suggestions. They aren't going to risk their viewership over your suggestions unless you can show that you were in the past and that you can accurately predict which maps are going to be popular.
This doesn't make any sense. First of all, NASL and IPL have trusted mapmakers and used their maps already. And there's a process of vetting anyway so show some stats, so it's not just believe what one person says "here use this map". The reason it didn't work well is because the pros avoid new maps if they can, so it's pointless to put new maps in a tournament unless everyone is playing the map anyway. That's why GSL is the only tournament in a position to use new maps. That and Blizzard's ladder. Yeah, so that's what I'm saying, only long tournaments like GSL and NASL and OSL can realistically introduce new maps.
Apparently, by your logic, we trust Blizzard to make maps, since theirs have been the majority of tournament staples. And yet their track record isn't that great. They don't trust Blizzard, they pick Blizzard maps they like. GSL pretty much decides at this point which Blizzard maps they like enough for tournaments and other tournaments follow suit.
Maps will get put into the drag-their-feet-about-it tournaments when everyone likes them, which will happen if they get noticed and played. That was the whole point of my previous post, not sure if you noticed.
Your suggestion(?) that we need to prove our map competence will never happen anyway, so you might as well be saying that it's impossible and we should give up, hence the first part of that post addressed specifically to you. I'm just saying how these people reason. If you're a tournament organizer. why would you risk putting in a new and untested map just of the word of some people? They rather stick with what stays.
That's why my suggestion is to cooperate with NASL and try to get a 'segment' pro showmatches on brand new maps, that way the maps can be tested to see if people and players like them and because it's not the actual tournament but the entire reason and the way the segment is marketed is to try new maps, they risk a lot less. I feel this is the most realistic option currently and hopefully some of those maps will bleed through eventually to NASL map pools and from there other map pools.
I also addressed "objective" map selection. The point is that it doesn't really matter, we can rotate in comparable maps, probably better maps. Also according to your logic, maps don't need to be balanced or good or the things we care about, just some special and apparently unrelated "viewer-boosting" property. To me and you, they need to be, to tournament organizers, not really.
Again, I'm just saying how these people reason and to communicate with them you have to understand how they reason.
Show nested quote +How many of us predicted accurately a couple of things:
- Crossfire is massively ZvP favoured, not the other way around.
- Metropolis is a big arse turtle fest
- Terminus turned out to be very TvZ favoured instead of the other way around what people expected. For the record, these were not that hard to see. But Terminus and Crossfire are bad examples because the metagame was still in full development over their tenures. Not that this matters, you used off the cuff examples and we could pick and choose all day.
I will reiterate, the TLMC was successful in everything we want to achieve. And it had basically all the problems you are pointing out. So why would an advisory committee suffer for them when the TLMC didn't? No, TLMC was initiated and backed by Blizzard, that's the main thing. Those maps were added to the ladder. To further the point, the staff ratings for the TLMC were:
1. Korhal Compound
2. Cloud Kingdom
3. Burning Altar
4. Sanctuary
5. Ohana
6. Haven's Lagoon
7. Twilight Peaks
Public rating was:
1. Ohana
2. Cloud Kingdom
3. Heavens Lagoon
4. Twilight Peaks
5. Sanctuary
6. Burning Altar
7. Korhal Compound
Now, which was more indicative of which map became popular and notable, the staff of the public rating? Experts might not be as expert as they think, or at least, they can't prove it.
|
You think we can't get community maps used without proving expertise. You think we can't prove expertise.
You think we can't get community maps used.
...?
|
On October 23 2012 05:11 EatThePath wrote:
Sisko, where are you on this chart? I can only believe you want map rotation
On October 23 2012 12:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Indeed, I want it.
Okay, Sisko... please try to take this with neutrality -- I have not engaged you in this debate, and I have even quoted you as basis for my position in this whole thing. What I want to know from you is:
1) *Why* you want the map pool to change? And maybe, corollarily, why did you became a mapper on TL?
2) *How* do you see your maps potentially making their way into the ladder, tournament map pools, etc.?
I have to tell you, that I can see your argument to a certain degree. If what you say is true, and any mapper must prove his worth in dollar signs to the people who control map pools, then any one of us, as an individual, group, or whole community, must do so *prior to* the map pool controllers giving the maps any credence. But if that is the case, what can any of us do? Why are any of us even mapping let alone trying to figure out some way to get custom maps into map pool rotation?
To be fair, there are other reasons why one might enjoy making melee maps and even posting them here on TeamLiquid. Granted, it is likely the overwhelming majority that wish to get their map(s) into tournament play, or the ladder. But other possible, and even likely motives are: to improve mapping in general by getting feedback, to find others who might be interested in playing their maps, to put forth mapping ideas for others to see, to gain recognition as someone who maps, to display great map art, to collaborate on a map, to feel a sense of community in the enjoyment of mapmaking, etc.
I for one, while I certainly have hope that at some point a map I create will catch someone's attention as something really interesting for tournament play, I primarily make maps for my own enjoyment, for the community of mapping, and in the hope that if I don't get a map into tournament rotation myself, that maybe one of my ideas might rub off or be stolen (!) in a map that does.
Why do I want custom maps in the map pool rotation? Because I like to see new ideas tested, and I enjoy watching progamers come out with some awesome build for a new map. This is why I loved the OSL and MSL in BW. The new maps always made for an exciting change, in addition of course to all the other hype regarding matchup, personalities, etc. I know what map rotation did for BW -- I want to see that again in SC2.
Unlike probably many people here, I think there are a TON of *good enough* maps to see this through on. Some better than others to be sure, so then the question becomes "well which ones do we pick"? To be perfectly honest, I do not think it matters all that much, I think just getting better map rotation in place is more important. That being said, I definately have favorites over others that I'd rather see played or play on myself. So the question remains "well which do we pick"?
And if we really have to start picking, then sure, I will get opinionated and super analytical and really let you know what I think about features of a map or balance/gameplay concerns. And I will have more favorite maps than others... even to the degree of getting annoyed when those maps for the most part do not seem to make it to say MOTM finalist level (some do).
But that is where I see the major problem with this endeavor. It is not in the "how are we going to prove to X organization that this map is great for viewership", it's in the "how are we going to put together an advocacy group that has one voice for the mapping community". As far as I see it, that voice doesn't exist, even within mapping teams.
Sisko, the way I see your argument is kind of like the following analogy. You are the guy who says "macro better". When you say this, you say it knowing well that in order to execute a strategy effectively, you need to have the mechanics to back it up. You say this to the rest of us with the idea that you are saving us time in improving our game. However, the exception is that our game isn't based on mechanics, we're playing chess.
Essentially you are answering the question "how are we going to get rotation?" with "you need to figure out how to get rotation" -- do you see what I mean? It's sort of a chicken/egg scenario -- you prove rotation with rotation working. That really isn't helpful and begs the questions at the beginning of my post.
So if your argument is really more that only the best maps are going to be able to prove rotation working for the map pool controllers, than really you just need to argue: we need to pick the best maps, we have no REAL consensus as a mapmaking commnity for which the BEST maps are, ergo we need to figure out how to reach a consensus.
I think the biggest stumbling block to this idea is simply the trust of the deciders to whom we grant the voice of the mapmaking community for the sake of advocacy.
Now again, I would be happy to see ANY consistant map rotation. But that being said, I fear having the danger of a precedant (that precedant being the "authoritative" opinion of the "best" maps) that will not be easily undone, a precedant coming through yet another mapmaking clique as I see it. I am disappointed enough in the relative lack of general sociality within the little niche world we have here as a group of mapmakers. I understand we are all competitive about our maps in some way. I understand we are all competitive gamers to some degree, who get our thrills off of figuring out how to get the mental upper hand on each other. But really, when someone like NewSunshine who just a few weeks prior I was having a great time with on one of my few trips to skype-land starts sniping about why I shouldn't map in a certain style because my motivations (?) are wrong...... not that he's one of those on the council or whatever, but the community just doesn't HAVE a solid, unified voice.
In any event, I think that the solution is going to come in two parts, and unfortunately I think one of those parts semi-depends on Blizzard.
The first part of the solution, and this may sound somewhat contradictory given what I just said, IS some sort of community voice / advocacy group. And I think that for all intents and purposes, it does need to promote a certain subset of maps **for initial rotation**. But I think that the main goal of the group should be simply to advocate for map rotation IN ITSELF and not for any given map. Dig up statistics on the success of such a format in, OSL, MSL, GSL, whatever. Develop a solid argument, and lobby to the tournament makers. It can be an active voice and a community approved voice if it stayed as unbiased toward the maps themselves as possible. This can be achieved to some degree by a collective vote of Mapmakers on what their favorite maps have been. Maybe every gives a top 5 and the top 10 are filtered out. Then, a TL wide, reddit wide, B.net wide, whatever poll can be taken and then we will get our maps for initial rotation that we can all agree more or less fairly are the ones that are """the best""" at least in terms of what we collectively see in maps (more or less) AND perhaps more importantly what the community at large wants (more or less).
No it's not scientific. It doesn't have guaranteed results. But when viewership goes up because new maps are being introduced, if one's a flop, throw the next one in. The numbers in terms of potential viewers from community involvement should at least make tournament organizers listen, even if not every map "proves" to be a super awesome fighting spirit. Even maps that wind up being broken and replaced generally wind up producing some really fun and watchable games (until the one, and perhaps even including the one that breaks it, e.g. Flash on Monty Hall).
Anyway, that's how I at least see this advocacy group working out.
The second part of this, is where I see another facet to this advocacy group that I don't think is talked about enough, and that I think NEEDS to be discussed more, is the angle of attack we might be able to take in getting community support for the kinds of ideas that would make playing melee within SC2 better. While I understand as Plexa put it many times (including to me in a PM a while back) that "TL is not B.net" this is the home of melee mappers for SC2 by and large and we need to figure out how to spill over into B.net, reddit, whatever the good ideas that would make SC2 much more custom map friendly.
I realize some of this happens already, but I think that with all the brain power that's put into the sometimes overly-aggresive critiquing of maps, we could really start to think up some ways in which Blizzard might be able to very simply convert some of their already existing functionality into some things that might be really useful for both tournament and casual gamers alike. And in doing so, form a sort of consensus bucket list for Blizzard to fill that would hopefully be more or less agreed upon and be lobbied for community support. If the whole community could point to a list and say, "yup, I agree with this" I think Blizzard might be more inclined to move on it. Hell, they moved on the suggestion to the Widow mine with much less.
Anyway, the point is I think there are plenty of these kinds of ideas out there, and I know I've had a few of my own, which I think don't get discussed enough, and don't get analyzed enough, and I think this group might be able to effectively come up with a way to sort of draw up the requirements and arguments for such things in a way that is comprehensive, yet concise enough for people to look at it and say "yup, Blizzard, do it" and for Blizzard to look at it and say "yeah that makes sense" and actually do it.
That is what I hope to see out of a group like this. And I apologize for getting a little stream of consciousness there, so:
TL;DR -- Actually, it's not that long go read, but just in case:
1) I agree with Sisko on being wary of supporting an advocacy group that doesn't really have a unified voice.
2) I disagree ultimately with Sisko that both we *need* to prove map rotation works to get it to happen and that we need to have a plan to do so in place before we start discussing how we plan to plan to do so.
3) I want this advocacy group to be a voice solely for advocating map rotation, while being as unbaised toward maps as possible.
4) I want this advocacy group to be a voice for how Blizzard can go about making the game better to support tournament map rotation as well as ladder map rotation, and other forms of promoting custom (melee in particular) maps.
5) I'm up way too late, stream of consciousnes, sry -- next time it will be well written. >.<
EDIT: Damn it guys! I put you two on hold position.... now I have to see if you said anything that affects this....
EDIT2: Well, I guess it does and it doesn't... I think my points still stand even if my undertanding of Sisko's point of view may have been in error to some degree.
EDIT3: some speeling, p'nctuat!on, & clarity
|
EDIT: Damn it guys! I put you two on hold position.... now I have to see if you said anything that affects this....
hahaha ^^
|
On October 23 2012 17:23 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
3) I want this advocacy group to be a voice solely for advocating map rotation, while being as unbaised toward maps as possible.
if it is purely about letting blizzard know that map rotation is needed, than why connect this idea to a council that is the brain child of the map making community?
connecting us with the idea to ask for more maps is going to lead into counter-arguments that say map makers want attention/profit share etc.
possibly there actually are better platforms, coming from a player/caster/watcher direction, to approach blizzard and ask for more map rotation.
if there was more map rotation on ladder than we had more new maps in tournaments-and the other way around. But taking viewing experience as the starting point one would argue that low-level player and watchers and high-level players who are being watched hsould play on the same maps long term (that are being rotated regularly btw).
so to put it all in one sentence: a council formed by map makers in order to promote more divers map pools is a nice lobby, but possibly not the one with most street credibility and on the long term this will not help to produce better maps, hence the outcry for more map rotation has to come from another side here. reddit?
Basically what you ask for is a group to motivate the use of more custom maps - it is the promotion-role that Diamond took. It helped, but in the future we need better ideas beside promoting some map as the best map ever.
yet the promotion is needed, but i want to argue if this is the map makers role. players cast occasionally, not most of the time
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
