EPTIt's obvious when a map will suck off the overview.
I think the "Blizz rules" are so stupid, but they are what is being used so with those in mind I am sure you can disqualify maps very easily without play.
Let's talk about TLMC4 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
It's obvious when a map will suck off the overview. I think the "Blizz rules" are so stupid, but they are what is being used so with those in mind I am sure you can disqualify maps very easily without play. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 10 2014 00:00 BronzeKnee wrote: I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!" Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective. This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time. And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility. Well let's clear a few things up. The only time anyone sees who the map makers are is when I collect the entries (they are then stored by map name only with no reference to the author). No one on the strategy team knew who were the authors of any of the maps while judging since that information was not made available to them. So map maker experience/notability simply doesn't factor into judging at all and maps are based on their merits as close as they could possibly be. The idea of a set criteria would be nice if not for a few things a) None of the things I posted in the OP are hard and fast rules and careful execution of those concepts can be successful in the right circumstance. However as I pointed out most people are unable to employ these features successfully. b) If I did introduce the OP's suggests as a hard rule set people would (i) get mad at me for killing creativity (ii) get mad when maps who broke the rules make the final list Ultimately those features are things which are considered standard on maps, and aspiring map makers should be well aware of those soft guidelines anyway! The only hard rule in this contest was the non-2p rule. I appreciate that it's frustrating to not have your map played by people, but that's just never going to happen for every map submitted in this contest. With 90+ entries it's impossible to properly test each map and indeed it's been the norm for some time for the majority of cuts to be made off of overviews. Even if a hard criteria was introduced which granted qualification to testing was introduced then arguably even less maps would have been tested than we did this season... the maps we tested included some which were incredibly non-standard -- if we thought the map had merit or could potentially be interesting it was included in testing. Should a superior way of judging maps present itself then I'm all for changing that, but as it stands nothing really offers an improvement. On May 10 2014 00:15 Whitewing wrote: For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps. And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough. And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner. I think this is an important message. The judging process is tried and true and really is a side issue to the fact that this season more than any other maps contained a disproportionate number of flaws. Arguably that was because of the non-2p restriction. Hopefully the feedback provided in this thread offers map makers a way to learn from their mistakes and either move forward with fresh maps or refine the maps they submitted in this contest. EDIT: anyway I'm done for the day. Hopefully members of the strategy team continue to answer questions while I'm asleep! | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On May 10 2014 00:15 Whitewing wrote: And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough. This this this 100% this. Speaking from experience, both my maps that have been played in tournament settings (darkness falls & hab stat), their first submissions were both vastly different from the submissions when they actually won their map contests. Darkness Falls had a same level main/nat, which was back in WoL so PvX was pretty much completely broken. It had a different 3rd mineral placement, it had a ton more surface area in the main and the middle was different. Pretty much when my map got top 5 in that IPL tournament I had to go back and change a bunch of stuff up because during the map tournament it turned out to be pretty imbalanced. Habitation Station was pretty imbalanced/linear when I first submitted it for TLMC #2. If it wasn't for the Plexa, the strategy team(monk helped a ton), the skype mapping cave and a handful of pros that would message me back it would have never looked how it does today. Even if you don't place in the top for TLMC you still should get some good feedback on what you can do to improve your maps. Both 1v1 maps I submitted had multiple entrances into the main and both had fairly unsafe naturals. In the short run when I'm creating the map I think both of those are okay and would be good ways to force innovation, but when you actually sit down and get some other feedback on it you start to realize the problems that unfold. For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5211 Posts
On May 10 2014 00:15 Whitewing wrote: For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps. And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough. And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner. What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers. It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from. That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately. But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =) On May 10 2014 00:56 SidianTheBard wrote: For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder. The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that. But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in? If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules! Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is. I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad... First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad. That never should have happened. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
 Just to make clear again. I am not attacking anybody personally. Your judging process is what it is. I just want to express my concern regarding your attitudes towards it. It is not a weakness to acknowledge shortcomings and question processes. On the contrary, it is a weakness to not do it from time to time. And answers like 'this is how we have always done it' or 'trust me I am the expert' are worrying, to say the least. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On May 09 2014 23:31 ZeromuS wrote: Keep that corner base concept and work with it however soul train is going to smash the backdoor third vs Z. The one size ramp you come down to defend as Z mmmmmm tasty. Thanks for the detailed feedback. It has confirmed my guess that Crusader wasn't not selected because of some inherent flaw but rather because it didn't fit the vision of this TLMC, in particular the "push the meta" part. Which I totally agree with, since it wasn't really designed to do that in the first place — it was more of a study how to design a four player map where every spawning pattern plays out different, and the whole point of the middle (apart from rewarding a player with map control against a turtling opponent) was to provide room for interesting tactical maneuvering rather than forcing meta changes. However, I'm somewhat confused by the emphasized part of the quote, since the ramp down to the backdoor third is 2 wide, not 1, and Zerg will only take the backdoor base as a third when spawning cardinally and the natural is facing the opponent, in which case the third is further away and soul-training your way into it would be rather difficult (lots of semi-open space on the way there) and leave you vulnerable to counterattacks. It seems to me that attacking the natural would always be more promising, but a Zerg could then sacrifice the nat while taking out your nat, and then you have one base against two and it's not as easy as on other maps to then take out the third because there's a ramp connecting it with the main, so you can't even cut it off. I think this is the sort of stuff that you can't easily see from an overview picture and where playtesting would be required to accurately judge the map, but since it wasn't the kind of map you were looking for anyway, this seems to be a moot point. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 10 2014 01:31 BronzeKnee wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 10 2014 00:15 Whitewing wrote: For the record, none of us paid any attention at all to who the map makers were when the maps were being judged and tested, and there was no bias I could tell existed towards specific map makers. We simply judged the maps. And nobody wasted their time, not winning isn't a waste of time. It simply means you learned something, and next time you can do a better job. We saw some really cool ideas that just weren't quite well thought out enough. And in the end, the judging team just chose the finalists, we didn't determine the ultimate winner. What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers. It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from. That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately. But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =) On May 10 2014 00:56 SidianTheBard wrote: For all I know I'll submit both Korhal Carnage & Into The Wilds into the next TLMC but I'll update them with all the feedback I've received and you never know, maybe they'll get into ladder. The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that. But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in? If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules! Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is. I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad... First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad. That never should have happened. I would assume that player bias doesn't get a chance to make its way through, given that the panel of judges consisted of more than 1 person. And as a mapmaker who knows what he's doing, I can tell you that the premise of your post is actually baseless. This large list of things Plexa posted, that list that you're using to attack the judging process, those are things every mapper should be doing in their maps, especially for a contest where maps are considered for ladder, these aren't rules that would have magically made submissions better, simply tips that every mapmaker should follow, and stuff that a lot of us already know honestly. If you were still at a point where these guidelines needed to be folded in, the odds of you making a winning entry at that point - guidelines or no - was already microscopic. The trouble came when some of the better mapmakers pushed things too far, in which case it served as a reminder of what we're trying to do here. And as it's been said, breaking one of these rules - which are not hard criteria - requires you to know exactly what you're doing. Good mapmakers are capable of doing this, lesser ones simply aren't yet. An overview is almost always enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, and determine which maps deserve further testing, and I'm saying this as a top-level mapmaker, which you are not. I personally found nothing objectionable about the judging process, my only distaste was the resulting winners, which comes from the non-2p restriction. We simply weren't ready for a rule like that because we practice 2p maps more than anything else, and by a large margin. The biggest culprit was the shorter time-frame for the contest, and there was a good reason for it, so overall though the contest was less than ideal in just about every regard, it was better than nothing and I don't think there was really anything we could have done better given the circumstances. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I also think bronze knee has a fair point that an up front guidelines list would have made a difference in submissions, I don't see how you can really argue with that. However, the point is that we all really want maps that break these guidelines in an expert way allowing the game to evolve. So, for how the contest functions and its intended goal, would having public guidelines be better? I'm not sure it would really create more top top maps, so probably not. And anyone with a shot would have a notion of these "guidelines" anyway. Anyone else should be focusing on improvement. Which brings me to... THIS. I would add that even outside of one's mapping prowess and success, it's really about contributing to the community and advancing the state of starcraft. To that end, it is always a good thing to have more maps in the fray. The ecology of ideas is always healthier when there is more diversity. You don't have to win map contests to succeed as a mapmaker. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:48 Plexa wrote: Actually what I was getting at is that they're both Blizzard maps >.> ... open space is related to how easy it is to move across the map and attack and whatnot. Most good maps do interesting things with what would otherwise be open space to promote interesting army movement or strategic decisions in which bases to take and so on. Open space just kinda does nothing, except make it difficult to move out as a non-zerg. That's just half of the story, imo. As you mention at the end, it changes how you can move out. It weakens certain playstyles and strengthens others. (e.g. Swarm Hosts are also much weaker if you can just walk around locusts) But, regardless of what it does, at the end of the day our experience shows it does not lead to balance problems. (of course combined with other features it might, but on its own, no, it has never been a problem in HotS) So why is it on the list? That is exactly what people talk about when talking about "limiting creativity". If you believe that open maps are boring and rather have every map choked up, that has nothing to do with maplimitations. Just with your own, personal preference. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13378 Posts
On May 10 2014 01:31 BronzeKnee wrote: What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers. It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from. That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately. But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =) The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that. But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in? If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules! Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is. I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad... First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad. That never should have happened. Let me further clarify something. The list plexa wrote was something we came up with after the voting was complete on our side. After plexa posted to finalists he asked us in our subforum - were there any specific reasons a lot of maps got disqualified - after the fact. We then went back and thought what were some common overarching issues we came across? The above is that set of things. Plexa simply summarised it here. Not every map had all these things and not one thing would directly disqualify you. Case in point:nimbus. Nimbus did not break any of his stated rules in the form submitted. Not one. Why didn't we choose it? A separate issue related to a 4p rotational imbalance and architecture that effectively made TvZ too terran favoured in one position and generally t favoured in all others. The only things we will flat out disqualify a map for are the main base ramps or lack thereof. And even then we would reach out and ask if the maker is willing to change it. Also on the topic of innovation. Again innovation is fine. But you as a mapmaker cannot and will not turn the meta on its head. You can make current strategies less optimal. Doing so forcesshifts slowly. Many map makers have come into this thread and said "how can we innovate if we need to allow for ffe". Easily you make pulling off a 2 base push less easy with map architecture. Thanks to this toss will either- do a new 2 base to win cuz the old ones are less effective or take a third. There now this map is pushing 3+ base play more often than 2 base. That's good. How do we push meta after that? Not sure tbh. But we need to work with a core to push the game into another direction. We can't just rewrite the core because naturals are " too easy". | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13378 Posts
On May 10 2014 02:25 And G wrote: Thanks for the detailed feedback. It has confirmed my guess that Crusader wasn't not selected because of some inherent flaw but rather because it didn't fit the vision of this TLMC, in particular the "push the meta" part. Which I totally agree with, since it wasn't really designed to do that in the first place — it was more of a study how to design a four player map where every spawning pattern plays out different, and the whole point of the middle (apart from rewarding a player with map control against a turtling opponent) was to provide room for interesting tactical maneuvering rather than forcing meta changes. However, I'm somewhat confused by the emphasized part of the quote, since the ramp down to the backdoor third is 2 wide, not 1, and Zerg will only take the backdoor base as a third when spawning cardinally and the natural is facing the opponent, in which case the third is further away and soul-training your way into it would be rather difficult (lots of semi-open space on the way there) and leave you vulnerable to counterattacks. It seems to me that attacking the natural would always be more promising, but a Zerg could then sacrifice the nat while taking out your nat, and then you have one base against two and it's not as easy as on other maps to then take out the third because there's a ramp connecting it with the main, so you can't even cut it off. I think this is the sort of stuff that you can't easily see from an overview picture and where playtesting would be required to accurately judge the map, but since it wasn't the kind of map you were looking for anyway, this seems to be a moot point. I am also at work on on my mobile so that added to the confusion  I'll take another look when I get home on the bus now and pm you some more feedback to reflect thus fact. Sorry! On a PC overviews are much more clear | ||
|
CoraBlue
United States24 Posts
On May 10 2014 01:31 BronzeKnee wrote: What you said doesn't change the fact that many mappers who submitted maps likely would have adjusted their maps to fit an objective criteria if there is one. Thus, people did indeed waste their time. And not just the mappers. It also reveals player bias (well this map is terrible for my strategy, therefore I don't like it). And it isn't something you consciously think of, it cannot be controlled for. Fact is, an objective system that was developed beforehand would have led to better submissions as map makers attempt to reach the stated goals, and therefore, likely better maps in the end as you'd have more to select from. That system is superior in all ways provided you set the criteria appropriately. But it does rob the judges of their jobs... and we know how that would go over in figure skating =) The feedback is great, and it's awesome that your going to use the feedback to improve them, I'm not arguing against that. But here is the big question, and answer honestly: If you had known before hand that certain things would disqualify a map, such as the big list Plexa posted, would you have made adjustments to fit the criteria or would you still have submitted your map(s) in the form they were in? If the answer is made adjustments, then objective criteria is a superior system, both for you, the contest itself, the players, and the game. Certainly innovation should be encouraged, and thus rules shouldn't be hardset as it'd stifle creatively. But I'd imagine a mapper could choose to break a rule and then include a written reason why the map works despite the rule break, and then that itself could be judged. Of course you might say that leave us the with the same problem... but it doesn't. If you want to guarantee that your map would be given more than an overview, then just follow the rules! Anyway, I just wanted to expand on lord_nibbler's idea, which certainly wasn't a baseless accusations. I was specific about the things I found appalling, but as lord_nibbler predicted, it will fall on deaf ears. Not a huge deal, I take it for what it is. I fondly remember the first TLMC, and when I was testing the maps before we played I broke them quickly. Which was sad... First round on Ohana I got matched vs Fitzy and I did what any good mid master underdog Protoss would have done versus a GM Zerg, I triple pylon blocked his ramp, and went into a 1 base Immortal All-In... I won. Were overviews used then? I imagine so, because the fact there wasn't a supply depot at the bottom of the ramp was pretty bad. That never should have happened. Personally I don't feel like my time was wasted. I've dicked around in the editor before, but never have I entered a serious contest. And yes, my feelings were hurt because I'm human. Zhakul Sacriledge is a pretty map, and I worked on it for days, an not only did it not win. It wasn't nominated. It wasn't even mentioned in the OP. Furthermore, 'you need to work on proportions' is a vague criticism that I'm not sure what to do with besides go back in and test it some more. But no, none of this thread would have changed my map, because if you didn't think about things like Blink Stalker play, rush distances, high ground aggression, and so forth then you need more of a foundation in game theory. A bunch of hard rules aren't going to help you. The best thing for the mappers would be a back and forth dialog. "There's a choke near the 3rd which I don't like, can you widen that?" "The high ground near the main is too close, tanks can hit depots." But that is not whats best for the judges and I can live with that. Talking individually with what seems like 40 or so mappers is something TL isn't equipped to do. None of us like to lose, but in the end, this isn't only a game, but a contest based on a game. Don't take whats said here personally and use it to improve where you can. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13378 Posts
| ||
monk
United States8476 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/418226-thoughts-on-mapping-and-tlmc-2 I wrote it back in WoL, but it touches on a lot of the same concepts that are mentioned here. In my opinion, it was a very good resource to refer to before entering this contest and it showed what a typical judge would look for when judging a map. It's interesting to see that in this contest, TLMC, Habitation Station finished I believe in the top 10-12 in internal voting, just short of being a finalist. The mapper, SidianTheBard, and I have a back and forth and I gave him some feedback through PM as well. You can see the old version that was submitted to TLMC2 in this post. After changing some stuff from the feedback, SidianTheBard resubmitted it for TLMC3 and won 2nd place, eventually getting it to be a ladder map. (Btw I wasn't a judge for TLMC3.) I want to note that the changes he made addressed all the concerns I had with it and in the end result, it was a much better map. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 09 2014 22:29 Big J wrote: yeah, which map does that apply to? Maps with only one attack path and hard to drop on are in general going to be extremely boring and blockable with various strategies. And are probably going to be broken in TvP long before they are broken for SH play. I remembered... SHs were pretty broken on daybreak. Whether this still applies with the much better counterstrategies is of course up for discussion. But yeah, i guess certain setups (like that short 4th to 4th) are probably limited by SHs. | ||
|
Zax19
Czech Republic1136 Posts
On May 10 2014 00:00 BronzeKnee wrote: I think his post makes a great point. Sure the judges in figure skating proclaim to be experts, but without a set criteria for judging, bias will always be involved. "Oh look there is some famous map maker, sure he breaks rules, but he knows how to break them so we'll let his map in, but that guy, pfft... that noob can't even follow the rules... kick that map out!" Now he isn't accusing you of actively showing bias, but rather, again, without a set criteria for map makers to follow, bias invariably becomes part of the conversation, and certain maps get more harshly judged that others. Surely, you must understand that map makers put a huge amount of time, and to have their maps get thrown out before even being played is frustrating, thus it would be nice for map makers to have criteria, which if they meet, their map is automatically granted entry into some kind of qualification where more than a overview of the minimap is done. And said criteria can be whatever you want, but it has to be objective. This thread is definitely a step in the right direction, but when you make a concessions in order to get things done in a timely fashion, as he suggests you should be humble and follow a set criteria so map makers know if they follow said criteria, they won't be wasting their time. And that is good advice, because you risk alienating map makers who know more than you about mapping. A lesson in humility. Yep. More to the point, how the hell do you have internal requirements which cut off certain maps even before the judging and release the requirements after the fact? No one will want to spend time making a map for the contest if there is a chance of constrictions they weren't made aware of. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 14 2014 18:44 Zax19 wrote: Yep. More to the point, how the hell do you have internal requirements which cut off certain maps even before the judging and release the requirements after the fact? No one will want to spend time making a map for the contest if there is a chance of constrictions they weren't made aware of. The only such requirement was that the map follow ladder standards, and I'm pretty sure people knew that. The list is comprised of things good mappers already should be following - it's like going into a marathon by demonstrating, step by step, how to walk and run. Anyone that really got anything out of that advice isn't going to be winning. | ||
|
Zax19
Czech Republic1136 Posts
On May 14 2014 19:31 NewSunshine wrote: The only such requirement was that the map follow ladder standards, and I'm pretty sure people knew that. The list is comprised of things good mappers already should be following - it's like going into a marathon by demonstrating, step by step, how to walk and run. Anyone that really got anything out of that advice isn't going to be winning. Well, I disagree | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Maps which encourage the meta-game to develop in interesting ways will most likely score well. I think that a lot of people took this as a sign that deviation from established map design principles was encouraged, especially in regards to naturals and the accessibility of thirds, so I'm not surprised that publishing the list of general rules (which really reads like your typical "how to create a decent map 101") after the contest left some mapmakers who thought TLMC wanted them to bend those very rules with a sour aftertaste. Even more so because the quote seemed to imply that more rigorous testing than usual would be taking place (because how else are you going to judge the effect a map has on the meta?) while in fact the exact opposite was the case. A single sentence such as "maps should adhere to established map design conventions and not try to re-invent the wheel" could have prevented this confusion. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1298 Posts
On May 14 2014 21:49 And G wrote: A big problem with those rules is this particular sentence in the TLMC4 announcement: I think that a lot of people took this as a sign that deviation from established map design principles was encouraged, especially in regards to naturals and the accessibility of thirds, so I'm not surprised that publishing the list of general rules (which really reads like your typical "how to create a decent map 101") after the contest left some mapmakers who thought TLMC wanted them to bend those very rules with a sour aftertaste. Even more so because the quote seemed to imply that more rigorous testing than usual would be taking place (because how else are you going to judge the effect a map has on the meta?) while in fact the exact opposite was the case. A single sentence such as "maps should adhere to established map design conventions and not try to re-invent the wheel" could have prevented this confusion. almost forgot about that quote, one big troll is what it is. | ||
| ||
