BWMN Time

06/30/2025

12:36

Map Access

Forum - main

Ideas for the next tournament. page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
K_A	I have an unexplainable attratcion to ash maps O.o
2011, 11, 23 19:09
greatn00b	Since we are struggling to find a good time for both the American and European players, and the map pool has grown bigger, i'd say we should make 2 tournaments. One would be at 12:00 CET/6 EST and the other at 23:30 CET/17:30 EST. We could use two weekends for these timings: December 3 and December 10. The first tour would feature the original 4 maps, and the second the other 3+1. Both tours would have about 25$ prize fund. You guys like the idea?
2011, 11, 24 04:44
K_A	Sounds beastly LET'S DO IT! modified by K_A
2011, 11, 24 05:20
greatn00b	:) I red some complaints about the format of the tour, and i must admit, that this isnt too familiar to the players, and actually more difficult for us and them as well. I suppose we could make a double elimination bo3 sieries for 32 players. And players would have to register on TL, iCCup or my site.
2011, 11, 24 05:49
greatn00b	Btw we should decide which tour (America or Eu) we want to do first. Would Eu tour be ok for dec 3?
2011, 11, 24 10:01
greatn00b	Great... Messer just told me the server might not be working on dec 3...
2011, 11, 24 15:07
JungleTerrain	Yeah, I think Dec. 3 is the last day of the season on ICCup, but I'm not sure. Regarding the format of the map: It's too confusing at a first glance. You have to keep in mind what the players are thinking and what they are familiar with. Most players expect a bracket system like in most ICCup Tournaments, or the format of OSL, MSL, etc. BWMN does not have a strong enough reputation among SCBW gamers for people to stop and spend 15 mins reading an article on the format of a tourney which they are already skeptical about. The best solution is to dumb things down. I've found that even some simple ideas being implemented, like having tourney administrators host and observe each match (as we saw in the last BWMN tourney), don't work because they are not practical. The format of the tournament should be easy enough for even a ten year old kid to understand, and this is to avoid as much confusion as possible. Another thing: Maps. The map pool is decent. However, the maps don't seem as professional as they could be. We want the tournament to be appealing, simple, easy to understand, but still professional. What I mean with "professional" is that some maps seem like they were made in, like, an hour. I understand that not everyone is super talented in mapmaking (not that I am, but Testbug is :) ), or that we aren't busy with school or work, but the maps should look like we spent a lot of time on them. For example, greatn00b's map: Lavalamp. It looks rushed, and that is mostly because of its aesthetics. Straight lines abundant, decoration lacking, mineral lines are bad (and ugly). Changing these things mentioned would not change gameplay significantly, but it's the presentation that counts. Even if we have the most imbalanced maps in the history of SC (which is not the case here), people would play the maps if they were eye-candy or looked professional enough. Think of it as if you were selling a product. Even if it's not the greatest product out there, you would puff it however you could to sell it. *By the way, I'm not bashing on greatn00b, but I do want to do as much as I can to make this tournament "better" and to enhance the quality of our maps. Just because things are good doesn't mean we can't do them better! Just my thoughts.
2011, 11, 24 20:41
ArcTimes	Agree with Jungle.
2011, 11, 24 20:45
JungleTerrain	If I could suggest a format, just have an elimination type tournament with brackets like in OSL elimination stage (without seeded players, of course, very simple). Something like this: ....................Winner .............______│______ ........___│___.........___│___ ....__│__...__│__..__│__..__│__ ...│......│..│.....│..│.....│.│......│ Obviously, the tournament would be Ro(Round of)[#], where [#] is a product of 2^x, where x is a non-negative integer. So choices would be: Ro2, Ro4, Ro8, Ro16, Ro32, Ro64, etc, etc... You get the idea. There are several websites that allow very fast and easy ways to set up tournament brackets. --------------------------------------- For the map pool, you can do it just as they do in OSL, as well. You simply tell what maps each RO# will be playing. This avoids any confusion. It would look like this: 5 Maps in Mappool: MAP 1, MAP 2 , MAP 3, MAP 4, MAP 5 .......RO16 (Best out of 1): MAP 1 Qrts...RO8 (Best out of 3): MAP 2, MAP 3, MAP 4 Semis..RO4 (Best out of 3): MAP 1, MAP 3, MAP 5 Finals.RO2 (Best out of 5): MAPS 1-5 This way is less confusing, but players may not like it as much. OR Simply state the Map Pool and have players decide which ones to use. If they cannot decide, then arbitrarily come in and pick it for them, if they do not want to play on it, they are disqualified in X number of minutes unless they decide on one. You can even get more restrictive and say: -RO16 can pick from MAPS 1 and 3 ONLY. -RO8 cannot pick MAP 1. This way may appeal more to players, but it may prove to be more confusing. However, from what Ive seen, this is the way people pick maps for most ICCup Tournaments (such as D, C rank tours) Do whatever you want. These are not exact, specific instructions, just general guidelines that should be followed loosely and can be adapted if necessary. modified by JungleTerrain*
2011, 11, 24 21:06
greatn00b	I can change the name of tour if you want Jungle... if you say my map is not good for representing this website...
2011, 11, 24 21:25
greatn00b	Or maybe somebody could decorate it. Cause im not sure how to do it right.
2011, 11, 24 21:37
JungleTerrain	I never said that. I don't think that, too. I simply think that if things can be done better, then they should. It's an idea that is applied to maps all the time, hence, edits and updates. That's what this website is for. The only way we can become "better" is by pointing out what needs to be changed and what we should get rid of. If anything, without you, we wouldn't even be talking of having this tournament again. But you are here, and we don't want to get rid of you. If we were to get rid of anything, it would be those things which we see are working against us, such as a complicated tournament format, or things that can be fixed in our maps. Please understand what I'm trying to say. I just used your map as an example because it was the first to come to my mind. I only criticize the maps I care the most about, usually.
2011, 11, 24 21:37
greatn00b	I agree with the format change. About my map: i can make the mineral lines less straight (although they are straight for a few reasons...), but as for the deco and straight lines... im not sure if i can do much better. But you are free to edit my map.
2011, 11, 24 21:59
greatn00b	Perhaps i could try and take some deco ideas from other ash maps... if you dont mind.
2011, 11, 24 22:18
greatn00b	Ah... maybe this tour aint gonna work out after all...
2011, 11, 24 22:50
K_A	I think people are just afraid to criticize the map because you're the reason we're having the tournament in the first place. Bwmn just happens to have extremely high standards for maps (you may have already noticed) Most people here are even openly critical of the proleague maps that the average Iccup player holds on a pedistal. Honestly you're map is pretty far below bwmn's standards (for a complete map) It looks more like a rough draft, which is why you are going to get comments like: fix straight lines, fix mineral lines, fix terrain in the middle.
2011, 11, 25 05:35
greatn00b	Yes, it seems my mapping style deviates from the -bwmn standards-. Strangely the players, who played on the map, weren't complaining about it.
2011, 11, 25 08:55
greatn00b	I like to think of the maps as chessboards, and to me it seems you folks like to think of them as paintings.
2011, 11, 25 09:07
JungleTerrain	I think of starcraft like chess, too, just more complex (not necessarily more difficult, since I don't play much chess) :)
2011, 11, 25 10:09
Freakling	Optics/aesthetics/great execution is one thing. You don't need to spend hours just on decoration like I sometimes do. Most pro-maps only have pretty basic deco, too. But there is a wide difference between, say (8)Fa$$te$t PoЁible CraP and (2)Chupung-Ryeung like - stacked, straight resource aggregats vs. good looking mineral lines - artificial square terrain vs. "natural", divers terrain - all flat terrain vs. lots of hills, ridges and chokes - peripheral "dead end" expos vs. multitude of different expos and interwinding paths between bases. In general terms (3++) player maps normally mostly revolve around an open center with peripheral expos whereas (2) player maps revolve around providing the player with a variety of different pathways, expos and battlegroungs that connect the two mains.
2011, 11, 25 17:53
	page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply:

You have to be logged in to post