[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=MillenniumArmy]It is true that many people aren't finishing their maps whether it be because of lack of motivation or patience, thus this leads to the inevitable frustration where we don't see many maps completed. But the thing is, what can you do about it? Mapping is a hobby afterall but in the end we, as starcraft players, want new maps to play on. We don't want to play some of the shit we see on battle.net; we want quality maps from quality map makers. This whole issue is more like a mutual agreement; "I make a map, you make a map, we all have fun." It's like we're all members of an isolated village somewhere in the mountains; in order for us to survive, we all have to do something.[/quote] [quote=Falkoner]Sorry Tux, but I think you are a bit too serious with your mapping, SC mapping [i]is[/i] a hobby, after all.[/quote] Ah! So we get to the key issue at last! Took long enough. No thanks to devilesk, of course. :P Therein is the dilemma I'm trying to address: Clearly, to finish maps, you have to acknowledge their 'not fun' aspect and find a way to push through it. Or in other words, you're really gonna need a specific reason as your source of motivation; not just wishy-washy "for fun". Which means that, inevitably, most maps end up being abandoned because the author's "for fun" conditions stop being fulfilled about half way into the map. However, now we get to the heart of the matter: SHOULD we even do that? I mean, now that it's clear what needs to be done to finish a [i]real[/i] map (not just your standard bnet junk, I mean to say), here's the problem then: [list] [*}We're not making money off of them. [*]Bnet doesn't care about them 80% of the time. [*][i]Blizzard[/i] doesn't care about them [I]100%[/I] of the time. [*]The UMS community isn't what it used to be. [*]SC is over a decade old; it's game engine is outdated many times over (for the purposes of map making, I mean; gameplay is still viable, of course). [*]We get to put up with people like devilesk still around for no real reason. [/list] So... is it worth making decent maps at all, really? Again, it's clear we have to find a consistent way to take them seriously to get them finished. But what intrinsic reason is there [i]to[/i] take them seriously? That's the question I'm pondering. For me, with AG, I think of it as something I want to have that can actually be played. My logic is that if I can do that correctly even once, then I'll be able to duplicate it, and thus have learned the key to successful gameplay. That's in part my goal for later: So I have an acute idea on how to make [i]real[/i] games. I do in fact intend to make an actual game. But not before I'm certain I have a good idea as to how. My situation is the exception here, though. For the purposes of a "for fun" hobby, I've begun to see that there's almost [i]no[/i] reason to take maps seriously, really. And thus, knowing that it then becomes highly unlikely to expect reliable map completion, there's almost no reason to even bother. Except perhaps with trivial maps (which are the only ones bnet ever seems to recognize, anyway). Discuss.[/quote] Well, I sorta agree that you definitely need to have [i]some[/i] seriousness, you need to crack down at some point and push through the hard part, and maybe it isn't fun during that time, but usually you get a lot of enjoyment later for your hard work, so in the end it ends up being for fun anyway, you don't have true fun with no work.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from MillenniumArmy

It is true that many people aren't finishing their maps whether it be because of lack of motivation or patience, thus this leads to the inevitable frustration where we don't see many maps completed. But the thing is, what can you do about it? Mapping is a hobby afterall but in the end we, as starcraft players, want new maps to play on. We don't want to play some of the shit we see on battle.net; we want quality maps from quality map makers. This whole issue is more like a mutual agreement; "I make a map, you make a map, we all have fun." It's like we're all members of an isolated village somewhere in the mountains; in order for us to survive, we all have to do something.

Quote from Falkoner

Sorry Tux, but I think you are a bit too serious with your mapping, SC mapping is a hobby, after all.

Ah! So we get to the key issue at last! Took long enough.

No thanks to devilesk, of course.



Therein is the dilemma I'm trying to address: Clearly, to finish maps, you have to acknowledge their 'not fun' aspect and find a way to push through it. Or in other words, you're really gonna need a specific reason as your source of motivation; not just wishy-washy "for fun". Which means that, inevitably, most maps end up being abandoned because the author's "for fun" conditions stop being fulfilled about half way into the map.

However, now we get to the heart of the matter: SHOULD we even do that? I mean, now that it's clear what needs to be done to finish a real map (not just your standard bnet junk, I mean to say), here's the problem then:

[*}We're not making money off of them.

• Bnet doesn't care about them 80% of the time.
  
• Blizzard doesn't care about them 100% of the time.
  
• The UMS community isn't what it used to be.
  
• SC is over a decade old; it's game engine is outdated many times over (for the purposes of map making, I mean; gameplay is still viable, of course).
  
• We get to put up with people like devilesk still around for no real reason.
  

So... is it worth making decent maps at all, really? Again, it's clear we have to find a consistent way to take them seriously to get them finished. But what intrinsic reason is there to take them seriously?

That's the question I'm pondering.




For me, with AG, I think of it as something I want to have that can actually be played. My logic is that if I can do that correctly even once, then I'll be able to duplicate it, and thus have learned the key to successful gameplay. That's in part my goal for later: So I have an acute idea on how to make real games. I do in fact intend to make an actual game. But not before I'm certain I have a good idea as to how.

My situation is the exception here, though. For the purposes of a "for fun" hobby, I've begun to see that there's almost no reason to take maps seriously, really. And thus, knowing that it then becomes highly unlikely to expect reliable map completion, there's almost no reason to even bother. Except perhaps with trivial maps (which are the only ones bnet ever seems to recognize, anyway).



Discuss.

Well, I sorta agree that you definitely need to have some seriousness, you need to crack down at some point and push through the hard part, and maybe it isn't fun during that time, but usually you get a lot of enjoyment later for your hard work, so in the end it ends up being for fun anyway, you don't have true fun with no work.

Yes, but pushing into that realm to commit to something even when its not fun in order to get the delayed gratification... that requires either an exceptional mental state, or a reason. I think most people still know they [i]could[/i] get that gratification from a finished map, but they still don't manage to finish anyway. As soon as adversity hits, they figure they ought to go look for fun in more promising ways elsewhere. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there appears to be no real rational reason to stick with that I can find (short of the ones I mentioned) to follow through on tough maps in such situations. And people can't be expected to be crazy enough to stick with their maps like I do, anyway :P (even though I [i]do[/i] also have ultimate reasons for each of them). That's just what I think, though.

Yes, but pushing into that realm to commit to something even when its not fun in order to get the delayed gratification... that requires either an exceptional mental state, or a reason. I think most people still know they could get that gratification from a finished map, but they still don't manage to finish anyway. As soon as adversity hits, they figure they ought to go look for fun in more promising ways elsewhere.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there appears to be no real rational reason to stick with that I can find (short of the ones I mentioned) to follow through on tough maps in such situations. And people can't be expected to be crazy enough to stick with their maps like I do, anyway (even though I do also have ultimate reasons for each of them).



That's just what I think, though.

Yeah, it really does take a pretty good mindset to finish large maps, such as RPGs, little maps like bounds and defenses are easy, which is one reason why there are so many of them. My thing is, I'll work on the maps, but I can't manage to get myself to work [i]a lot[/i] on them, just a tiny bit. Still, it definitely pays off when you finish, most of the time.

Yeah, it really does take a pretty good mindset to finish large maps, such as RPGs, little maps like bounds and defenses are easy, which is one reason why there are so many of them. My thing is, I'll work on the maps, but I can't manage to get myself to work a lot on them, just a tiny bit.

Still, it definitely pays off when you finish, most of the time.

Well, I used to think hard work always pays off. But with maps, and especially with bnet, it's more about the [i]right[/i] work rather than just [i]any[/i] hard work that appears to pay off. Learned that the hard way, of course. :P By the way, I'm working off the notion here that there exists a reason to motivate any degree of action. In other words, I don't think people are just [i]only[/i] capable of the little amounts of work they say they are. I think they just don't [i]want[/i] to do more because the reason they've found isn't good enough. That's the basis for my argument on taking maps seriously. Is that something you guys agree with?

Well, I used to think hard work always pays off. But with maps, and especially with bnet, it's more about the right work rather than just any hard work that appears to pay off. Learned that the hard way, of course.



By the way, I'm working off the notion here that there exists a reason to motivate any degree of action. In other words, I don't think people are just only capable of the little amounts of work they say they are. I think they just don't want to do more because the reason they've found isn't good enough. That's the basis for my argument on taking maps seriously.

Is that something you guys agree with?

C'mon. I see you fuckers viewing the thread. I know you're reading this. Don't have ANY feedback on this matter at all? Gawd. No wonder you dolts can't finish your maps. :P Don't tell me I'm giving too large a dose of critical thinking too swallow here...

C'mon. I see you fuckers viewing the thread. I know you're reading this.

Don't have ANY feedback on this matter at all? Gawd. No wonder you dolts can't finish your maps.




Don't tell me I'm giving too large a dose of critical thinking too swallow here...

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar]If you want to start a dead-end existential debate over the meaning of right and wrong, I'd recommend putting it in your own Politics, Science, Religion thread. Meanwhile, I'm contemplating what a good lulz map idea ought to be...[/quote] Dead-end... more like no-end. It's the journey not the destination. If everyone approached philosophy with the notion that you must arrive at an answer then they would never get anywhere, because once you reach one "answer" a dozen questions come up. The point is what you get from the journey in thinking about things and how you thought about them.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

If you want to start a dead-end existential debate over the meaning of right and wrong, I'd recommend putting it in your own Politics, Science, Religion thread.


Meanwhile, I'm contemplating what a good lulz map idea ought to be...

Dead-end... more like no-end. It's the journey not the destination. If everyone approached philosophy with the notion that you must arrive at an answer then they would never get anywhere, because once you reach one "answer" a dozen questions come up. The point is what you get from the journey in thinking about things and how you thought about them.

[quote=devilesk]Dead-end... more like no-end. It's the journey not the destination.[/quote]No-end might as well be a dead end if it's something you need to make a decision upon. That's why I find your attempts at invoking broad existential philosophy pointless and obnoxious with no purpose in this particular thread. Note that I didn't create this thread in the Politics, Science, Religion forum. [quote]If everyone approached philosophy with the notion that you must arrive at an answer then they would never get anywhere, because once you reach one "answer" a dozen questions come up. The point is what you get from the journey in thinking about things and how you thought about them.[/quote] More or less. I don't expect to reach a single resolution for the philosophy of map making. I just want to see if people can find reasons of their own to take maps more seriously so they can be finished more often. That's enough. But short of MA's attempt to suggest mapping should be for the community (which does really just translate to a variation of the same "for fun" thing that I'm pointing out isn't working), or Rantent's inadvertent suggestion at doing it for lulz (and of course my own, being to use maps as prototypes for bigger stuff later), it appears there are no good ideas for this. Is the general consensus, therefore, that we should stick to making crappy cheap bnet maps only? Because those are the only things we can hope to consistently be able to finish, otherwise. There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.

Quote from devilesk

Dead-end... more like no-end. It's the journey not the destination.

No-end might as well be a dead end if it's something you need to make a decision upon. That's why I find your attempts at invoking broad existential philosophy pointless and obnoxious with no purpose in this particular thread.

Note that I didn't create this thread in the Politics, Science, Religion forum.

Quote

If everyone approached philosophy with the notion that you must arrive at an answer then they would never get anywhere, because once you reach one "answer" a dozen questions come up. The point is what you get from the journey in thinking about things and how you thought about them.

More or less. I don't expect to reach a single resolution for the philosophy of map making. I just want to see if people can find reasons of their own to take maps more seriously so they can be finished more often. That's enough.

But short of MA's attempt to suggest mapping should be for the community (which does really just translate to a variation of the same "for fun" thing that I'm pointing out isn't working), or Rantent's inadvertent suggestion at doing it for lulz (and of course my own, being to use maps as prototypes for bigger stuff later), it appears there are no good ideas for this.



Is the general consensus, therefore, that we should stick to making crappy cheap bnet maps only? Because those are the only things we can hope to consistently be able to finish, otherwise.

There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar] [quote=devilesk]Dead-end... more like no-end. It's the journey not the destination.[/quote]No-end might as well be a dead end if it's something you need to make a decision upon. That's why I find your attempts at invoking broad existential philosophy pointless and obnoxious with no purpose in this particular thread. Note that I didn't create this thread in the Politics, Science, Religion forum. [quote]If everyone approached philosophy with the notion that you must arrive at an answer then they would never get anywhere, because once you reach one "answer" a dozen questions come up. The point is what you get from the journey in thinking about things and how you thought about them.[/quote] More or less. I don't expect to reach a single resolution for the philosophy of map making. I just want to see if people can find reasons of their own to take maps more seriously so they can be finished more often. That's enough. [/quote] They don't even have to find a reason to take mapping more seriously. What makes mapping seriously better than mapping unseriously. I think the better alternative is just to have people ponder their own reason for making maps and strengthen their reason. For whatever reason one maps for, there is never a wrong or preferable reason. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] But short of MA's attempt to suggest mapping should be for the community (which does really just translate to a variation of the same "for fun" thing that I'm pointing out isn't working), or Rantent's inadvertent suggestion at doing it for lulz (and of course my own, being to use maps as prototypes for bigger stuff later), it appears there are no good ideas for this. [/quote] Define "good". There may not be a [I]definite [/I]answer, but that doesn't mean all other answers are invalid or inferior or unsatisfying. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] Is the general consensus, therefore, that we should stick to making crappy cheap bnet maps only? Because those are the only things we can hope to consistently be able to finish, otherwise. [/quote] Define "crappy" and "cheap". One may tend to like those maps. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.[/quote] Define "point" and why. It's not only about the destination, it's about the journey. Hence the connection to WoodenFire and his Crescent Dyne. It may not have ever been finished, but it doesn't really matter.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

Dead-end... more like no-end. It's the journey not the destination.

No-end might as well be a dead end if it's something you need to make a decision upon. That's why I find your attempts at invoking broad existential philosophy pointless and obnoxious with no purpose in this particular thread.

Note that I didn't create this thread in the Politics, Science, Religion forum.

Quote

If everyone approached philosophy with the notion that you must arrive at an answer then they would never get anywhere, because once you reach one "answer" a dozen questions come up. The point is what you get from the journey in thinking about things and how you thought about them.

More or less. I don't expect to reach a single resolution for the philosophy of map making. I just want to see if people can find reasons of their own to take maps more seriously so they can be finished more often. That's enough.

They don't even have to find a reason to take mapping more seriously. What makes mapping seriously better than mapping unseriously. I think the better alternative is just to have people ponder their own reason for making maps and strengthen their reason. For whatever reason one maps for, there is never a wrong or preferable reason.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

But short of MA's attempt to suggest mapping should be for the community (which does really just translate to a variation of the same "for fun" thing that I'm pointing out isn't working), or Rantent's inadvertent suggestion at doing it for lulz (and of course my own, being to use maps as prototypes for bigger stuff later), it appears there are no good ideas for this.

Define "good". There may not be a definite answer, but that doesn't mean all other answers are invalid or inferior or unsatisfying.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Is the general consensus, therefore, that we should stick to making crappy cheap bnet maps only? Because those are the only things we can hope to consistently be able to finish, otherwise.

Define "crappy" and "cheap". One may tend to like those maps.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.

Define "point" and why. It's not only about the destination, it's about the journey. Hence the connection to WoodenFire and his Crescent Dyne. It may not have ever been finished, but it doesn't really matter.

[quote=devilesk]What makes mapping seriously better than mapping unseriously. I think the better alternative is just to have people ponder their own reason for making maps and strengthen their reason. For whatever reason one maps for, there is never a wrong or preferable reason.[/quote] Because I'm trying to establish that people who use "for fun" reasons fail to finish their maps reliably. Simply strengthening it (like MA suggesting also community as the reason) helps, but doesn't hold up over the long term, since it's just an extension of the "for fun" aspect. But when someone decides they want to do something like try to prove a point with their map, or create it for a specific goal (one which they're serious about), THEN you start to see the maps being finished. Surely you know this. [quote]Define "good".[/quote]No. [quote][quote=Tuxedo-Templar]There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.[/quote] Define "point" and why. It's not only about the destination, it's about the journey. Hence the connection to WoodenFire and his Crescent Dyne. It may not have ever been finished, but it doesn't really matter.[/quote] Being just about the journey is greedy. You get an experience for yourself, but without returning something of substance back to the community from that journey, the community diminishes, and the 'journeys' of others diminish too. That is, again, if there's no maps being made, then there's no material for people to play, learn from, attract new interest, etc. But aside from the community, actually finishing a map gives you the other and most important half of the journey that you otherwise miss out upon. It may not always be the 'fun' part, but without it, people get by with the notion that all their gratification should come to them in the short term rather than the long, and thus they may make a habit of consistently being even [i]less[/i] inclined to complete the things they start (maps or not). A nasty cycle.

Quote from devilesk

What makes mapping seriously better than mapping unseriously. I think the better alternative is just to have people ponder their own reason for making maps and strengthen their reason. For whatever reason one maps for, there is never a wrong or preferable reason.

Because I'm trying to establish that people who use "for fun" reasons fail to finish their maps reliably. Simply strengthening it (like MA suggesting also community as the reason) helps, but doesn't hold up over the long term, since it's just an extension of the "for fun" aspect. But when someone decides they want to do something like try to prove a point with their map, or create it for a specific goal (one which they're serious about), THEN you start to see the maps being finished.

Surely you know this.

Quote

Define "good".

No.

Quote

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.

Define "point" and why. It's not only about the destination, it's about the journey. Hence the connection to WoodenFire and his Crescent Dyne. It may not have ever been finished, but it doesn't really matter.

Being just about the journey is greedy. You get an experience for yourself, but without returning something of substance back to the community from that journey, the community diminishes, and the 'journeys' of others diminish too. That is, again, if there's no maps being made, then there's no material for people to play, learn from, attract new interest, etc.

But aside from the community, actually finishing a map gives you the other and most important half of the journey that you otherwise miss out upon. It may not always be the 'fun' part, but without it, people get by with the notion that all their gratification should come to them in the short term rather than the long, and thus they may make a habit of consistently being even less inclined to complete the things they start (maps or not). A nasty cycle.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar] [quote=devilesk]I think the better alternative is just to have people ponder their own reason for making maps and strengthen their reason. For whatever reason one maps for, there is never a wrong or preferable reason.[/quote] Because I'm trying to establish that people who use "for fun" reasons fail to finish their maps reliable. Simply strengthening it (like MA suggesting also community as the reason) helps, but doesn't hold up over the long term. But when someone decides they want to do something like try to prove a point with their map, or create it for a specific goal (one which they're serious about), THEN you start to see the maps being finished. Surely you know this. [/quote] No, fun as a reason for making maps is equal if not superior to making maps seriously. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] [quote]Define "good".[/quote]No.[/quote] Fail. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] [quote][quote=Tuxedo-Templar]There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.[/quote] Define "point" and why. It's not only about the destination, it's about the journey. Hence the connection to WoodenFire and his Crescent Dyne. It may not have ever been finished, but it doesn't really matter.[/quote] Being just about the journey is greedy. You get an experience for yourself, but without returning something of substance back to the community from that journey, the community diminishes, and the 'journeys' of others diminish too. That is, again, if there's no maps being made, then there's no material for people to play, learn from, attract new interest, etc. But aside from the community, actually finishing a map gives you the other and most important half of the journey that you otherwise miss out upon. It may not always be the 'fun' part, but without it, people get by with the notion that all their gratification should come to them in the short term rather than the long, and thus they may make a habit of consistently being even [i]less[/i] inclined to complete the things they start (maps or not). A nasty cycle.[/quote] No, as you experience the journey, everyone else does if you're posting about it in a map production forum. You can't deny that people went along for the ride with Crescent Dyne. I'm sure the people not even making the map knew more about it than the maker. If one has been making a map purely for fun, then once they finish it they are rewarded with even more fun. If one makes a map only for the sake of making a map then they can't fully appreciate the reward of fun once they finish it. Your second to last statement contradicts your point. If one has been having fun the entire time while making a map then they are receiving gratification over the long term. If one has been serious the entire time the only gratification they can expect is once the map is done, hence the second part of the sentence, they will be less inclined to finish the map. The solution is therefore not to become even more serious, but to have more fun. NASTY CYCLE.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

I think the better alternative is just to have people ponder their own reason for making maps and strengthen their reason. For whatever reason one maps for, there is never a wrong or preferable reason.

Because I'm trying to establish that people who use "for fun" reasons fail to finish their maps reliable. Simply strengthening it (like MA suggesting also community as the reason) helps, but doesn't hold up over the long term. But when someone decides they want to do something like try to prove a point with their map, or create it for a specific goal (one which they're serious about), THEN you start to see the maps being finished.

Surely you know this.

No, fun as a reason for making maps is equal if not superior to making maps seriously.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote

Define "good".

No.

Fail.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

There's no point to maps that can't be finished, I think.

Define "point" and why. It's not only about the destination, it's about the journey. Hence the connection to WoodenFire and his Crescent Dyne. It may not have ever been finished, but it doesn't really matter.

Being just about the journey is greedy. You get an experience for yourself, but without returning something of substance back to the community from that journey, the community diminishes, and the 'journeys' of others diminish too. That is, again, if there's no maps being made, then there's no material for people to play, learn from, attract new interest, etc.

But aside from the community, actually finishing a map gives you the other and most important half of the journey that you otherwise miss out upon. It may not always be the 'fun' part, but without it, people get by with the notion that all their gratification should come to them in the short term rather than the long, and thus they may make a habit of consistently being even less inclined to complete the things they start (maps or not). A nasty cycle.

No, as you experience the journey, everyone else does if you're posting about it in a map production forum. You can't deny that people went along for the ride with Crescent Dyne. I'm sure the people not even making the map knew more about it than the maker.

If one has been making a map purely for fun, then once they finish it they are rewarded with even more fun. If one makes a map only for the sake of making a map then they can't fully appreciate the reward of fun once they finish it. Your second to last statement contradicts your point. If one has been having fun the entire time while making a map then they are receiving gratification over the long term. If one has been serious the entire time the only gratification they can expect is once the map is done, hence the second part of the sentence, they will be less inclined to finish the map. The solution is therefore not to become even more serious, but to have more fun. NASTY CYCLE.

[quote=devilesk]No, fun as a reason for making maps is equal if not superior to making maps seriously.[/quote]Not in terms of getting them actually finished for a change (for the non-crap ones, I mean). [quote]No, as you experience the journey, everyone else does if you're posting about it in a map production forum. You can't deny that people went along for the ride with Crescent Dyne. I'm sure the people not even making the map knew more about it than the maker.[/quote]Well we DID get the terrain from the map. Then it blew up into expectations grounded off that tiny slice of a real product, which in time inevitably collapsed in on itself. But, see, there WAS something that came of it. That terrain. Which was enough to make it at least not a complete lie. But ending up as a lie nonetheless, ultimately, reduces general confidence in the community. As what happens with every other map that fails to get finished. [quote]If one has been making a map purely for fun, then once they finish it they are rewarded with even more fun. If one makes a map only for the sake of making a map then they can't fully appreciate the reward of fun once they finish it.[/quote]You can still have fun making a map and also refering back to your critical reason for making it when you're not. I don't see why they should conflict. Afterwards, if you achieve your goal, it's probably going to be even MORE rewarding than just general kudos, besides. And that's on top of the general kudos you'd get as well.

Quote from devilesk

No, fun as a reason for making maps is equal if not superior to making maps seriously.

Not in terms of getting them actually finished for a change (for the non-crap ones, I mean).

Quote

No, as you experience the journey, everyone else does if you're posting about it in a map production forum. You can't deny that people went along for the ride with Crescent Dyne. I'm sure the people not even making the map knew more about it than the maker.

Well we DID get the terrain from the map. Then it blew up into expectations grounded off that tiny slice of a real product, which in time inevitably collapsed in on itself.

But, see, there WAS something that came of it. That terrain. Which was enough to make it at least not a complete lie. But ending up as a lie nonetheless, ultimately, reduces general confidence in the community. As what happens with every other map that fails to get finished.

Quote

If one has been making a map purely for fun, then once they finish it they are rewarded with even more fun. If one makes a map only for the sake of making a map then they can't fully appreciate the reward of fun once they finish it.

You can still have fun making a map and also refering back to your critical reason for making it when you're not. I don't see why they should conflict. Afterwards, if you achieve your goal, it's probably going to be even MORE rewarding than just general kudos, besides. And that's on top of the general kudos you'd get as well.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=devilesk]No, fun as a reason for making maps is equal if not superior to making maps seriously.[/quote]Not in terms of getting them actually finished for a change (for the non-crap ones, I mean). [quote]No, as you experience the journey, everyone else does if you're posting about it in a map production forum. You can't deny that people went along for the ride with Crescent Dyne. I'm sure the people not even making the map knew more about it than the maker.[/quote]Well we DID get the terrain from the map, and that was the big part. Then it blew up into expectations grounded off that tiny slice of a real product, and then in time toppled over. But, see, there WAS something that come of it. The terrain. Which was enough to make it at least not a complete lie. But ending up as such, ultimately, has reduced some general confidence in the community. As what happens with every other map that fails to get finished, but to their own varying degrees. [quote]If one has been making a map purely for fun, then once they finish it they are rewarded with even more fun. If one makes a map only for the sake of making a map then they can't fully appreciate the reward of fun once they finish it.[/quote]You can still have fun making a map and also refering back to your critical reason for making it when you're not. I don't see why they should conflict. Afterwards, if you achieve your goal, it's probably going to be even MORE rewarding than just general kudos, besides. And that's on top of the general kudos you'd get as well.[/quote] Seriousness doesn't have to be your main reason. Fun can be. One can make fun their top priority and also be serious about finishing it. Fun and seriousness don't conflict, but also one isn't superior to another. That's the problem I have with what you're saying. Fun is not inferior to serious.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

No, fun as a reason for making maps is equal if not superior to making maps seriously.

Not in terms of getting them actually finished for a change (for the non-crap ones, I mean).

Quote

No, as you experience the journey, everyone else does if you're posting about it in a map production forum. You can't deny that people went along for the ride with Crescent Dyne. I'm sure the people not even making the map knew more about it than the maker.

Well we DID get the terrain from the map, and that was the big part. Then it blew up into expectations grounded off that tiny slice of a real product, and then in time toppled over.

But, see, there WAS something that come of it. The terrain. Which was enough to make it at least not a complete lie. But ending up as such, ultimately, has reduced some general confidence in the community. As what happens with every other map that fails to get finished, but to their own varying degrees.

Quote

If one has been making a map purely for fun, then once they finish it they are rewarded with even more fun. If one makes a map only for the sake of making a map then they can't fully appreciate the reward of fun once they finish it.

You can still have fun making a map and also refering back to your critical reason for making it when you're not. I don't see why they should conflict. Afterwards, if you achieve your goal, it's probably going to be even MORE rewarding than just general kudos, besides. And that's on top of the general kudos you'd get as well.

Seriousness doesn't have to be your main reason. Fun can be. One can make fun their top priority and also be serious about finishing it.

Fun and seriousness don't conflict, but also one isn't superior to another. That's the problem I have with what you're saying. Fun is not inferior to serious.

Seriousness needs to have a place, though, or the maps won't get done. It's what you fall back on as your way of sticking to the map for the long term when it's no longer entertaining for the short. Once you get past that, then you can get into the specific elements of things that prevent a map from being finished. But if your heart and mind are not in the right place to begin with, no amount of tips or hints will help.

Seriousness needs to have a place, though, or the maps won't get done. It's what you fall back on as your way of sticking to the map for the long term when it's no longer entertaining for the short.


Once you get past that, then you can get into the specific elements of things that prevent a map from being finished. But if your heart and mind are not in the right place to begin with, no amount of tips or hints will help.

Whoa this was a whole lot more active than I had thought... [QUOTE]By the way, I'm working off the notion here that there exists a reason to motivate any degree of action. In other words, I don't think people are just only capable of the little amounts of work they say they are. I think they just don't want to do more because the reason they've found isn't good enough. That's the basis for my argument on taking maps seriously. Is that something you guys agree with?[/QUOTE] Well of course! If we were are forced by men with whips to produce more maps, we'd be producing 'round the clock. Which is one thing I see failing with my experience in mapping teams. Partners know that mapping can be a hassle sometimes and so they let you off easy. In this case, if everyone flamed you obsessively if you didn't get your work done on time, then you'd probably get it done. [QUOTE=Devilesk]Define "good".[/QUOTE] Essentially Overarching. [QUOTE]Define "crappy" and "cheap".[/QUOTE] Things that could come out of a 30 minute mapping contest, that spread around b.net like wildfire. Although I disagree with the statement that simplistic maps should be our primary goal in mapping. I consider simple maps to be simply exercises for testing out new ideas, preparing you for a bigger project down the road. And when large scale maps are indefinitely incomplete, they often still teach. Many of my long maps remain incomplete because halfway through making them, I realize that systems I have implemented can be reduced down to some smaller form. This realization and new system is then carried into a new map. In this way, completing maps is essentially unimportant, and one more reason that we should keep mapping is so we can learn better ways of doing things. (And there is always a better way.) Of course, with the coming of SC2, there seems to be little motivation for learning more about what will be an obsolete game.

Whoa this was a whole lot more active than I had thought...

Quote

By the way, I'm working off the notion here that there exists a reason to motivate any degree of action. In other words, I don't think people are just only capable of the little amounts of work they say they are. I think they just don't want to do more because the reason they've found isn't good enough. That's the basis for my argument on taking maps seriously.

Is that something you guys agree with?

Well of course!
If we were are forced by men with whips to produce more maps, we'd be producing 'round the clock.

Which is one thing I see failing with my experience in mapping teams. Partners know that mapping can be a hassle sometimes and so they let you off easy. In this case, if everyone flamed you obsessively if you didn't get your work done on time, then you'd probably get it done.

Quote from Devilesk

Define "good".

Essentially Overarching.

Quote

Define "crappy" and "cheap".

Things that could come out of a 30 minute mapping contest, that spread around b.net like wildfire.
Although I disagree with the statement that simplistic maps should be our primary goal in mapping. I consider simple maps to be simply exercises for testing out new ideas, preparing you for a bigger project down the road. And when large scale maps are indefinitely incomplete, they often still teach. Many of my long maps remain incomplete because halfway through making them, I realize that systems I have implemented can be reduced down to some smaller form. This realization and new system is then carried into a new map. In this way, completing maps is essentially unimportant, and one more reason that we should keep mapping is so we can learn better ways of doing things. (And there is always a better way.) Of course, with the coming of SC2, there seems to be little motivation for learning more about what will be an obsolete game.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar]Seriousness needs to have a place, though, or the maps won't get done. It's what you fall back on as your way of sticking to the map for the long term when it's no longer entertaining for the short. Once you get past that, then you can get into the specific elements of things that prevent a map from being finished. But if your heart and mind are not in the right place to begin with, no amount of tips or hints will help.[/quote] No, one doesn't need seriousness, one needs [B]motivation[/B]. And the fuel for motivation can be [I]anything[/I]. [IMG=http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/molehill2mountain.jpg]

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Seriousness needs to have a place, though, or the maps won't get done. It's what you fall back on as your way of sticking to the map for the long term when it's no longer entertaining for the short.


Once you get past that, then you can get into the specific elements of things that prevent a map from being finished. But if your heart and mind are not in the right place to begin with, no amount of tips or hints will help.

No, one doesn't need seriousness, one needs motivation. And the fuel for motivation can be anything.

Motivation is the whole fucking issue we've been talking about. What kinds fail and what kinds work. It's not a molehill. I've come close to quitting on maps like Rush, Trigger Happy D, Kill Me, AG, etc. countless times. The only reason those got finished was because I kept reevaluating my reasons for continuing with them. People just don't bother doing that, though, and that's why they hit their dead ends.

Motivation is the whole fucking issue we've been talking about. What kinds fail and what kinds work.

It's not a molehill. I've come close to quitting on maps like Rush, Trigger Happy D, Kill Me, AG, etc. countless times. The only reason those got finished was because I kept reevaluating my reasons for continuing with them. People just don't bother doing that, though, and that's why they hit their dead ends.