Next Contest Rules Suggestions(2v2)

I’m strongly for having 4 judges

 

I believe a 2v2 contest should be judged by those who occupy the 2v2 space, and have proven their understanding of its meta. I know staff will probably want to be judges, however I believe they'd serve a better role as producers, overlooking a film director, or in this case, the judges. In other words, keep in touch to make sure things are moving along, weed out potential questionable circumstances, but do not actually judge the maps.

No radar is must. No ground pound, no spartan charge, magnum starts, new maps only built as of the start date (because you know everyone here has already begun designing the moment this thread went up)

Transparent judging process, stream the lobbies, give clear explanations and reasoning behind why certain maps outshine others.

And don't be shady. The MM conversation is going to come up, so let's just say yeah, if we have a good looking rotation of maps by the end of this, we'll probably all want to harass poor Blaze about a doubles update. We're all thinking it, so we might as well all be transparent and on the same page.

I think we all know that just because a potential playlist is discussed, it doesn't always mean it will happen and things can always change- I'd like to imagine that we can all acknowledge there are 'no promises' and then build for the love of 2v2 as oppose to just getting something in MM. Granted, that's easy for me to say considering I do have stuff in MM, but still, complete transparency would be nice and keep anyone from feeling uninformed.






Also schmeefs. every map needs schmeefs

 

Staff: Seth and Foge

Community: Multi and Box
Or
Soul Flame and Xandrith

 

I'd say definitely be open to scripted dynamic elements like key doors, map manipulation by players etc...

 

levelution for daysss

 

I'd love to judge and make a well edited video for the whole thing, but I really do think I'd rather participate this time around. Thanks anyways my dudes

 

I have no problem being a judge, however if I’m not a judge i have an idea for what I would make.

 

Maybe each Judge writes a post to a size of their comfort that details a few key principals they find valuable in map design and also what they personally will be looking for during the judging process.

This could give the participants some insight into the judges before building a map to be judged.

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, as I like to do when it comes to things like this.

If there's going to be an expectation of transparency from the judges, if we're going to expect them to explain their reasoning for decisions, we should expect the same of participants. Part of the requirement of submitting a map should be to clearly explain your goals for the map. Are you designing for a specific play style? Are you focusing on particular design template (3-base, for example)? Why did you select the weapons you've placed on the map, and why did you place them where they are? I want to know about your approach to spawning in your map. I want to know about your theme, color choices, mood. I want to hear about how your map changed as a result of testing, and your reasoning for the changes.

We want transparency from judges because we want verification that they're knowledgeable and that they've been thorough in performing their job. From a judges point of view (having experienced that side of things), I want the same thing from those who submit maps. I don't want to reward someone who spent 2 hours building something on the fly without any forethought. I want some transparency from participants so that I know they're knowledgeable, and have done their job thoroughly.

 

Seth
Blaze
Chunk

One forgehub staff, one 343 employee, and one qualified community member.

New maps only.

Make the goal of the contest and what youre looking for obvious.

Make the reasoning for the selections known.

 

How do we determine what a "new" map is?

Are only published and mm maps considered old? What about near complete concepts that have been around for some time?

If we aim to have entirely new maps, how do we asses if they truly are or aren't?

I believe if we go the route of entirely new, at bare minium we should give forgers 6+ months to develop test and polish their maps.

I'm an advocate of allowing any map that hasn't been published on FH or is not in MM due to the difficulty of determing what is truly new vs what isn't.

 

What I meant by new was anything that hasnt been published. While, ideally, everyone would create maps intended for this contest, there is no way to ensure that.

 

Chunk just eliminated half of the submissions.

 

there are going to be maps that are submitted that have been wips for months before the contest announcement, there is no way to enforce this whole "new maps only" thing to the fullest extent. Not even checking the files date is a safe bet, they could just save it as a new file

why can't we do the same thing as the 4v4 contest where all maps can be submitted as far back as the last 2v2 contest? 6 months is still more than enought tine for someone competent to forge and polish a 2v2 map if they wanted to compete in the contest

im just saying if you do go down the "new maps only" route, don't say it's because it's more fair because that will definitely not be the case. Just be honest and say "no already published maps"

 

Although we want the forgers themselves to be as transparent as the judges, let's not immediately fail an accidental masterpiece cos it's forger doesn't quite know how on earth they came up with it. Of course, I'd encourage to write as much as possible detailing the design process of your map anyway. For a start, it will help the judges understand your map better and therefore judge better. Everyone is always like, you didn't like my map just cos you didn't understand the beauty of it's design. Well tell us about it. Make us all understand.

As far as new maps only goes, it's hard to judge, but regardless we should do it, to encourage more newer maps. If anything it's more fair if someone had a few months head start as they're already working on something, rather than they've already finished something as they had a few years head start.

With new maps though, you do need a decent contest length. Is 6 months maybe a bit to much though? I appreciate every extra week but we don't want the contest to drag on to long. We can perfect the maps afterwards maybe?

 

I also just cut the time required to judge the Maps in half.
You’re welcome.

 

Not quite, the worst half is gone

 

anything thats not been published, cause yeah you cant dictate whats original or not. If scavenger hadnt gone into mm in '16, it would be getting broken down into a 2v2 as we speak

 

that means prior forges as well. no one is allowed to bring back settler