| BWMN Time |
| 12/11/2019 |
| 12:54 |
| News |
| new account |
| list users |
| Login: |
| Replays |
| Map DB |
| ICCup |
| Map Access |
| New map |
| Edit map |
 |
Forum - main
MOTW-criteria page: 1 | ||
| we got a feedbackthread over there on bw.de, asking for criticism and replys to the recently launched projects. one of them is the newsseries I control, the presentation of BWMN-motw every week. the replys showed 2 things so far. almost everyone likes it and appearantly, there is a lot of recognization (<-?) about it. but so far, there have been 2 main points of criticism: -some said, BWMN-motws are cool and stuff, but shouldn't be used too much in showmatches because most of them would not be balanced. [translated quote: "if you host showmatches on the BWMN-motws, then plz only rarely and on really good maps, many of those MOTWs just don't have the potential for exciting balanced games"] -others said, BWMN-motws and new maps are cool in general, but they would lack some originality because you try in vain to find something new. [they consider motw = 100% new;that is obviously that part of users that want 100% fresh gameplay] without any comment at first, but one thing: I think it is hard to find a path between playability for great matches and originality. I'd just say we need to pay attention for gameplay at all costs. now that there are so many maps, there should be some testgames before making a candidate MOTW. this leads obviously to "more activity in testing" gimme your opinions on what we should focus most. | ||
| 2006, 01, 30 22:12 | ||
| playability | ||
| 2006, 01, 30 22:22 | ||
| Mapdori style! | ||
| 2006, 01, 30 22:41 | ||
| It's true, most of the 'balancing' we do here is theoretical and not practical. It's just by vague, general rules that we have discovered. But balance should really be tested through playing. So how about whoever is active on these forums posts their MSN or IRC or some way to contact them, and we start doing some games? | ||
| 2006, 01, 31 00:58 | ||
| Ok, here is what is in my mind, write it, prety fast, because i don't have time. Now i will do an example with only me and my maps! Most of you say "LGI, nice map, but experimental", or something like this... Ok now, maps like Grapes of Wrath or Hocus Peakus or something, might be looking a little experimental, but to the pro gaming scene, there is no such map with this concept. That might put those maps in the original section, but MAYBY not in the balance section. So the deal is when GoW or Hocus Peakus is finished by me, i pass the map to Starparty for example, and he delete/add some staff to balance the map. I repeat this was just example for me and my maps... This was the first thing that comes to my toughts, and i had to write it fast, so don't flame me if i am wrong. I might be wrong, and i accept this. See ya later people! | ||
| 2006, 01, 31 07:47 | ||
| We really go for (boring) playability over all right now. The map that plays well but does not offer much new gameplay wise almost always wins. So it's pretty much the maps where THE PLAYERS are responsible for making good games on than, not the mapper. The comments you just posted are mostly contradicting, because it is impossible to be "new and fresh" and at the same time proven balanced if the map has not been released and played yet. I actually think we should go a bit more experimental on our motw, let people _prove us_ imbalances. that helps more than general whining. | ||
| 2006, 01, 31 09:38 | ||
| Yes, lets be like map dori and find a something new we can do with an editor and spam it like mad all over a map. | ||
| 2006, 01, 31 23:59 | ||
| You know... I notice that some of the people here have wrong toughts about the maps. I notice that most of the MotW candidates are the newest maps on the site. Maps who are still not tested, not discuss enought, some with potention for more upgrades, etc... And i wonder why the from one side the MotW should be a MAP OF THE WEEK (that nearly means a map from this week that is submit to the site), and most of the advanced mappers say that a MotW should have... The criterias above my comment (i mean all of the comments, not a single post). To complete the criterias above, we should do many staff that can't be done in only one week. But still we continue to make new maps a MotW, and then sometimes we have bad comments about the MotWs on the web. I wonder if i didn't submit (4)Nautilus 1.1 by Travin, wich map with ID between 800-900 would be... I think we should look a little back in time in our data base. We should continue work on a maps, that were discuss, tested, and that were near to get the title MotW. But don't get me wrong. I mean maps who worth a MotW, not maps, who were near only becouse of abuse flooding, pushing etc... They were many weeks when we say "Damn, another week, where they are many maps that i like, and it's hard to choise...". I hope you get my point with my bad english. | ||
| 2006, 02, 05 19:23 | ||
| the point is simply that you think proven maps should be motw. I do not really agree, motw is not a very important thing for any leagues or something, so if it is not perfect, it does not matter that much. | ||
| 2006, 02, 05 19:54 | ||
| But the problem is, that maps are meant to be played. And the more experimental, the lesser is the chance that the map is gettig played at all. Actually, i'm a bit of a dumbnut there also. If the map doesn't look balanced or to experimental to me, i won't test it. I've seen "almost everything" in mapping by now, and tested a hell lot of concepts also. But, there is a standard a map in Starcraft has to follow, and if the concept is to experimental, the map isn't going to be downloaded and plaed before people can "_prove us_" that it's imbalanced. They don't even prove us now, they simply look at the picutre and state the fact. Sure, they are wrong quite often, still they won't download the map and think "hey, now i show you that this map is imba" and after playing it "hey, this map isn't imba at all". Total BS imo. MotW, imo, is a mixture of newest maps made and most balanced/playable maps. Simply because of the fact that most of the new maps from trcc, Spitfire, SP, and stuff are made with the gained experience on older maps here. It's just not like every map has to go through a week long process to be good, or even great, or MotW worthy. Anyway, i would like to see Hokus Peakus as MotW, i really like it and i don't think Terran is fucked like others do. But that's not the point here. | ||
| 2006, 02, 05 22:09 | ||
| what about an open test: we take a current MOTW-pool and post it as poll on the GG.net and bw.de-forums. then, without specification on what to focus, we just ask "which of those map should be MOTW in your opinion" then we see how it developes and which criteria are important for the masses. if we do it once, or maybe twice, we can draw a conclusion out of it in oder to have a guideline for future decisions. this test-pool should be a MOTW-series where already on monday or tuesday the "favorites" are submitted. and it should be represantative: there should be several good maps which make the decision hard. we don't have to take a special fix date for this, but when we see at some tuesday "hey, that could do it", then "gogo". | ||
| 2006, 02, 05 22:16 | ||
| Hm, but at some point I do not see why we have to go anywhere to do it. This page is open to anyone, if someone has an opinion, he can just as well come here to state it. | ||
| 2006, 02, 05 22:35 | ||
| i just want to have a drawing of what's the public opinion. and with this site, we cannot reach as many ppl as we can do on bw-forums. remember, mostly mappers visit this site, but ggnet and bwde are _giants_ with large _broodwar-players. I really think it would help our purpose... | ||
| 2006, 02, 05 23:05 | ||
| page: 1 | ||
Reply:
You have to be logged in to post
 |