The winner of the other contest will be using the key during this time

Can anyone tell me how many people entered? Ty

You could have just counted the submissions, its 6.

No, I submitted 3 maps.

Submissions that actually counted.

Oh... 5/6... lol i thought i did really well w.e

5/6 by only a couple points.

You can read my judging notes for some feedback on how to improve the map. You scored well on aesthetics.

1.5 points more and you would have had the bronze medal. You're the winner of hearts.

Savage seas had great potential, and it might have beaten my map if it didn't glitch, but it wasn't even playable. It should not have beaten everyone else's map.

A glitch doesn't necessarily affect every category; the reason for multiple categories is so that a map doesn't need to excel at everything, and so that single mistakes don't completely devastate a score. There was a separate scoring category for completion, which he scored lowly in, which resulted in him not winning the contest. As far as I'm concerned, the judging process was rather effective.

I just think it's funny how "is your map playable" falls under the 5 point category while "does your map look pretty?(aesthetics)" is under the 10 point category. I just think Zoan's playable map should have beaten one that isn't. I mean, that's the point of making maps. For people to be able to play.

A valid point, Mr. Jenkins. Congrats on your victory, by the way. I haven't gotten around to playing the other maps (yet!), but I am quite certain it was well-deserved.

By that logic, "OMFG ONE BILLION ZERGLINGS" would be a contender in a mapping contest also.

Aesthetics is the name of the category, but it encompasses more than eye candy. There is a big difference between maps where the author has taken time to pay attention to the little details and make things consistent and something which just looks pretty. The most common example people cite is qpk's maps, they're extremely detailed. As for why the playability is 5 points while the aesthetics is 10, it's mostly because of the length of the contest I'd say. If this were the year-long last stand contest I'd say gameplay should count for more since you'd had plenty of time to bug hunt and stuff, but in the week or two that this contest spanned it might not have been enough time to make a fully complete map. When we hold these contests on SEN we typically assume that the mappers will finish them anyway, even after the contest ends.

It beats a game that can't be played. Savage seas should've been a great map, but unfortunately it was broken. If I were judging this contest, I'd take out my handy-dandy clip board of rating a game. Let's take a look at it now:

• 1. This is a game. Games are meant to be played. Can you play it?
  

Dammmmn. It failed requirement #1. While I've got my clipboard out, I'll rate something else.

BROKEN TELEVISION by SONY

Gameplay: It was really fun to watch until it exploded after 2 minutes of programming. It would've been really fun, though, if it weren't for the fact that it blows up after minutes of using it. I mean, it's the thought that counts, right? I mean, sure, this category is about whether or not I enjoyed myself while I was watching the T.V., and, maybe the T.V. made it impossible for me to do so, but, I would've had fun, right? 78/100
Originality: Pretty damn original. I can't remember the last time I saw a T.V. that blew up. 85/100
Aesthetics: This category is all about attention to detail. The manufactures of this T.V. obviously paid very close attention to detail(except for the fact that it doesn't work). 850/1000
Completion: Didn't serve its main purpose of existence. That's okay though. Because the category that has to do with a T.V. doing what T.V.s were made to do is not worth that much. 0/5

TOTAL: 1013/1205
Not bad for something that most people would find no enjoyment of, due to the fact it doesn't do anything.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Apr 14 2010, 1:09 am by Leeroy_Jenkins.

I, too, agree that Zoan's map was greatly underrated. Especially since it's very similar to yours in a lot of ways and even better on a purely technical level. Nonetheless, winning the contest doesn't give you reason enough to bash mine.

According to your standards the simplest, most unoriginal maps that don't require much triggering should have a huge advantage over maps that were intended to be much more complicated and innovative. Two weeks, given the fact that most of us only have time to play during the week-end, is not nearly enough time to complete a fully original and innovative map.

Don't forget that the whole purpose of this contest was to add great maps to starcraft's already massive roster. There are already countless of dumb, unoriginal maps and frankly, I really doubt that's what the founders of this contest wanted to have. In that perspective, games that are genuinely innovative, even if they are unfinished or broken, should still be given a chance in the contest and, in my own personal opinion, deserve far more acknowledgement than the unoriginal ones that are finished.

On another note, judging a television and a map on starcraft are two completely different things. I hardly see how using such a flagrantly fallacious argument could possibly prove anything.

It wouldn't be fair or even accurate to score a map lowly because of a single glitch. The map was playable, and it was a game.

I expected a few maps to be incomplete or buggy due to the short span of the contest. It was intentional. We would prefer short quality maps rather than mediocre finished ones. Making all the categories much more important than completion allows mappers more freedom to do whatever they want without having to worry about fine tuning, perfecting, and finishing every aspect of the map. A quality map which is fun to play doesn't necessarily need to be finished, and as such, a finished product isn't necessary in all situations -- the fun and quality of a map does not require it.

Each category is independent from one another, so that a single mistake won't necessarily lower the overall score for the entire map. It wouldn't be fair to dock down every category for your mini RPG because the battle mechanic was terribly boring; you had a lot of strong points in your map that were independent from the battle mechanics. It wouldn't create meaningful scores if I judged the storyline implementation on your map based off of how fun it was to fight hydralisks with a marine.

Similarly to chia's map, a meaningful score couldn't have been produced if I judged every single one of his categories based off of a single battle glitch; he had a lot of other strong points which were completely independent from his battle glitch.

As for Zoan's map, as stated in both Vrael and my judge notes, was lacking in gameplay and design; it wasn't too fun. Although, since we had an effective scoring system, that didn't diminish the returns of all the other categories so his map scored very closely to the other competitors. As for how playable Zoan's map was, as claimed by Leeroy: he had a glitch for player 3 which wouldn't allow them to continue playing after a single death.

I remain in the position that we scored the maps correctly, no matter how much you will rant, leeroy. If anyone should be complaining, it should be Zoan.

I also wouldn't judge a broken television on the basis of gameplay, originality, aesthetics, and completion

Well yeah I'd have to say punishing a map massively because of one glitch is pretty unnecessary too but.

It's a UNAVOIDABLE, game-ending glitch.

This shows that you didn't even run through your map before you submitted it? So I would have to say yeah that's probably worthy of something to be heavily punished for. Anyway contests over this is just good feedback for the judges here, no need for people to start callin flame war! lol.

Haven't he said it was on purpose ?
(He made game froze there since he wasn't done)
... or I'm just not in the good context >.<