Please congratulate our MotM #8 winner, TPW Artifice by funcmode!
This month was one of the hardest choices for the judges yet, and we're very happy with all of the maps. I know we say that every month, but this month every map except City of the Damned was under serious consideration (that map sucks! ^__^) Overall, Artifice stuck out as a very solid map with great game-play, superb balance, and clean aesthetics. Congratulations to funcmode for creating such a great map!
Are you ready for more Map of the Month? Map of the Month #9 is here (on-time finally!), after an extremely successful Season 1 (Please sign our petition if you haven't yet). Each month, the judge panel selects the top 5 community maps to be played in a professional tournament! The winning map will be added to the all-time map pool. Please welcome the judges for September:
Andrew "Barrin" Chilson
Ben "Funcmode" Winkworth
Chris "FlopTurnReaver" Widmer
Jonghyun "LSPrime" Weeks
Peyton "Monitor" Levin
This month's competition will allow any melee map made for 1v1 - the map must fulfill the melee requirements. We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions! Please use the following format to enter your map in this thread-
Map Name Map Author
Overview image.png
Map Description Link to map thread (if applicable)
Remember to email the map file to submit.motm@gmail.com or you will be disqualified. Map submission closes Thursday, Sep 08 5:00am GMT (GMT+00:00) . Finalists will be chosen by September 12th.
With any questions, please send a PM or email to iGrok @ igrok.motm@gmail.com.
October's Map of the Month competition will feature a special twist. You must design a map Blizzard-style! Now, I know we often criticize Blizzard-made maps. But its up to us to show that Maps made in Blizzard's style can be viable!
So, what does "Blizzard-style" mean?
1. Blue bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers
2. Gold bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers
3. Pick a tileset and stick to it! And no custom textures or models!
It is often said that you are most creative when you limit yourself (usually in better words - I'm not a poet). And that's what we're trying to achieve here! Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.
*Note: The Bel'Shir restriction is removed for October.
Congrats funcmode! Your map was definitely my favorite as well, very solid yet brilliant both layout wise and aesthetics! Hopefully we will see some good games on this map in the future
October's restrictions sound sick considering what today's mapmaking standards are O_O
Btw I don't like your all-time map pool. Mapmaking is so very dependent on the volatile metagame of SC2 that I think maps that won MotM one year ago aren't necessarily good by today's standards at all plus the fact that the quality of the maps rose drastically since when you started.
On September 03 2011 00:37 iGrok wrote: October's Map of the Month competition will feature a special twist. You must design a map Blizzard-style! Now, I know we often criticize Blizzard-made maps. But its up to us to show that Maps made in Blizzard's style can be viable!
So, what does "Blizzard-style" mean?
1. Blue bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers
2. Gold bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers
3. Pick a tileset and stick to it! And no custom textures or models!
It is often said that you are most creative when you limit yourself (usually in better words - I'm not a poet). And that's what we're trying to achieve here! Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.
*Note: The Bel'Shir restriction is removed for October.
Not to take any light away from Artifice which is an awesome map, but the next person to submit a 16base 4player rotational symmetry map in this style loses 100 eSports dollars + Show Spoiler +
unless it's like fucking awesome
MotM is only getting better!
Yeah 100%, I wanted to say this but forgot: I really hope this month the good mapmakers will be a lot more experimental! As much as I liked Dylarian Shipyard or Artifice, in the end they are rather boring concepts and I'm sure if the best mapmakers take some more risk they are able to create something exciting, new that is still balanced and solid
By pick a tileset and stick to it do you mean we have to use the Aiur Tileset for example and not add stuff from other ones? Because Blizzard does not stick to one Tileset on their maps.
To be fair, Abyssal Caverns does have Mar Sara sand in it, and I'm sure there are other examples, but they generally do exhibit some level of fidelity. I'm kinda interested in maybe cranking something out for that though.
Does Blizzard-style mean that maps can't have unblizzard-y stuff like mineral blocks, changed watchtower radii, hostile units, neutral buildings or creep tumours etc for motm 10? (It doesn't mention stuff like this, but I just want to be sure)
On September 03 2011 10:46 Namrufus wrote: Does Blizzard-style mean that maps can't have unblizzard-y stuff like mineral blocks, changed watchtower radii, hostile units, neutral buildings or creep tumours etc for motm 10? (It doesn't mention stuff like this, but I just want to be sure)
well i guess i can't submit since my recent map has a custom tileset. I worked hard on it for submission to motm 9 and now I can't even submit it. that stresses me out
The main and natural are back to back. Defending two bases is easier when they're close to each other but you can also have more casualties if your defense isn't in place. Back to Back was created with Fast Expansions in mind. You can make a wall down your ramp so it either covers both bases or closes the corridor alongside the main.
Instead of a line of grass there are several patches. You can place your army in the grass and have an air unit for vision. But beware of the Xel Naga towers that give vision on the high grass.
Playable: 188x188. Enemy can not spawn right next to you, but can in any of the other 6 locations. XelNaga watch towers ease early scouting, but they can only see the main building of opponent, not the mineral line, gas or ramp. Also they self destruct at the 5 minute mark. Choke to natural can be walled with 3 bunkers or other buildings that size. The gold base has 8 mineral patches. No rich gas geysers, destructible rocks or sight blockers.
Hello everyone, let me present you my child with a wonderful woman i met some years ago named Arkanoid. Look how cute he is, i love him so much, he looks as cool as his daddy!
Rockstin Rockder
It's a very very cool macro oriented map with very cool features such as rocks, Xel'Naga towers, rocks, gold expands and rocks. The layout is very cool. Watch out for sneaky sneaky things from the main backdoor! However, the map might be a bit too complicated for new players so this map won't appear in the ladder map pool, i'll instead let my beloved design team do the amazing job!
On September 03 2011 20:48 Dustin Browder wrote: Hello everyone, let me present you my child with a wonderful woman i met some years ago named Arkanoid. Look how cute he is, i love him so much, he looks as cool as his daddy!
Rockstin Rockder
It's a very very cool macro oriented map with very cool features such as rocks, Xel'Naga towers, rocks, gold expands and rocks. The layout is very cool. Watch out for sneaky sneaky things from the main backdoor! However, the map might be a bit too complicated for new players so this map won't appear in the ladder map pool, i'll instead let my beloved design team do the amazing job!
It's not symmetric, gotta fix that if you want the map to be balanced.
On September 03 2011 20:48 Dustin Browder wrote: Hello everyone, let me present you my child with a wonderful woman i met some years ago named Arkanoid. Look how cute he is, i love him so much, he looks as cool as his daddy!
Rockstin Rockder
It's a very very cool macro oriented map with very cool features such as rocks, Xel'Naga towers, rocks, gold expands and rocks. The layout is very cool. Watch out for sneaky sneaky things from the main backdoor! However, the map might be a bit too complicated for new players so this map won't appear in the ladder map pool, i'll instead let my beloved design team do the amazing job!
2-player map that generally produced a lot of 3-5 base play. Each base has a different strategic approach to it (some are open, some have LOS, some have a tiny ramp, etc). The map was inspired by Bel'Shir Beach and while there are similarities, it is NOT the same. The tileset is completely custom as well which contains a very dry, rocky, rugged texture set to resemble a dry beach. The destructible rocks are key to taking your 3rd, and as a benefit for both players, they have been reduced to 1 armor and 1000 health (down from 2000) to allow a quicker opportunity to take a safer 3rd through the back door.
On September 04 2011 00:24 Holiver wrote: Also tried clicking the link to your map thread and kept wondering why it wasn't working. Sneaky sneaky bastard! :D
wtf, is that a dream? I wanted people to make a map with this 2 2 player maps in one style and I always want people to use mineral blocks. If I was a judge this would instantly be top5
Features: - 4Spawnposition-map with cross only; This creates 2 - 2-player constellations which are totally different in terms of game experience and game progress (rush and macro) -Adventure feature: after 30 game-minutes there will be no flood anymore, which will give the players access to two waterways (top left and bottom right) and let them play more flanks etc. - this should make the lategame more dynamik -huge area in the middle to fight on. Place for flanks but also for army-positioning. -Texutures of molynth and aiur have been fused. This makes the map look like an old fortress
On September 04 2011 23:45 monitor wrote: One more day until map submissions close. Please enter your maps guys!
There were only 3 day's to submit? It seems like MotM 8 had over a week for submissions, are you guys trying to cut down as there were too many maps last time?
This map features a very large area of line of sight blockers in the middle, they are all buildable. Two Xel'Naga towers are placed on the sides of this area, they provide a great advantage for the players who controls them. I also placed a 4*4 square of LoS at the natural choke to give the defender a slightly bigger advantage.
Wowowow, so risky and innovative with all these LoS blockes! I love the expansion layout as well, we haven't seen many maps like this (probably only Scrap Station and Alpha Stations come close).
Instantly my favorite map
edit: I will submit my map tomorrow. I fear more TPW guys will do it then as well... right now I guess I could at least have a decent chance .P
On September 05 2011 01:25 dezi wrote: Cool, a pedobear map ^^
I saw a fat man bending down.
But wow. The map is pretty amazing. It took me a long while to find a complaint about it, but I could. Imo the big dark are extends too far to north and close to the 3rd bases making attacks with infestors probably too powreful as they can fungal and neural units defending the 3rd while being the dark area unattackable. Move the dark area 3-5 grids away from the 3rd base and you have without doubts the best map I have ever seen.
This was originaly made for the asymetric map challenge, so it's a 3 players asymetric map. Each spawn has a highground main (with a drop/tech hiding spot), middleground natural and 2 possible 3rds (one on middle ground and one on low ground), in addition there are 2 golds and 2 islands for a total of 16 bases, 3 xelnaga towers, destructible rocks to open additionnal attack paths and some LoSB madness.
Map thread : not available (insufficient vespene gas)
Relaxation. (Name MIGHT change to Paradise Platforms.) 4 Player Melee Map Fully Symmetrical An Tropical Map set on a space platform. Who wants to fight crowds when you can relax in space, on your own Paradise Platform? Well it turns out on Paradise Platform, instead of fighting the crowds for a good spot, you are going to be fighting for your life. MWAHAHAHHA. (lol jk)
Gold expo's in the middle, 1 rich vespene geyser at each. Xel Naga watch tower in the middle, surrounded by LoS blockers.
Relative easy to take and protect 2nd and 3rd, as well as plenty of spots for a macro game in 1v1.
FFA and 2v2 also possible.
My first ever MotM submission. I liked the premise more than my delivery on my idea... but its still a cool map imo. After fighting with customizing the terran set, I would like to trade out the white for a more realistic sand, but o well. This space platform was aiming for perfection i guess when it came to the sand.
I like the concept, and think i did a fair enough delivery of it, so enjoy.
ESV Bardiche Created by: Neobowman, AKA Einhart Based on the Brood War map, "Moonlight Punch Romance" by TwoS. Pronounced: Bar-deesh Destructible rocks obstructing the centre path have 1000 hp and 1 armour each. Line of sight blockers on the edge of the main are uinpathable. High ground at natural is unpathable. Third bases have 1 rich vespene geyser each.
A small map with a triple path layout. The central path is short but is blocked off with destructible rocks. The other two paths lead to expansions.
A 1v1 Melee map with two naturals. One is guarded by rocks, and the rocks are watched by a Xel'Naga tower. That one may be easy to take early game, but it is much harder to defend 3 bases and has 7 mineral patches instead of 8. Take the exposed natural first, and then the raised expansion for an easy 3-base defense.
Protoss can get three bases rather swiftly, but the bases they chose provide vulnerabilities. If they decide to take the pocket natural first they will become vulnerable when expanding to the open natural. Start taking down the rocks, and when they do try to expand they will have to spread their army thin to defend. Expanding to the open natural first is harder due to the open nature of the expansion and abusable cliffs, something you can use to your advantage to punish their greed.
Air harass is strong on this map due to the layout of the bases (3 mineral lines close together and accessible by air) and the long rush distances, so phoenix openings may be more viable than the average map. For harass lategame I saw 4KExO place a Phase Prism on the Xel'Naga like hallway, sending 3 zealots to the raised, gold, and natural expansions.
Zerg can expand swiftly. Be ware, any fast expanding on your part will often be met with a double-expand from them. Pressure to punish them and keep then from properly droning to 3 full base, or surprise them with a powerful 1-base push. Parts of the middle are wide open, so keep your back to a cliff or the acid pools in the center, and beware of counterattacks. Also, there are plenty of lovely high-ground patches for Zergs to place their overlords. Don't build your tech at your ramp if you don't want it to get scouted, or make sure to clear the overlord off the nearby high ground.
Terran have many options for early-game pressure. There is an almost lost-temple like high ground next to the open natural and I'm sure terrans will have plenty of fun with that. Or, they can even forgo Medivacs and begin their assault on the open natural by placing tanks on the raised expansion. Due to the layout of the bases, banshee harass is strong throughout every stage of the game. Siege tanks can be used to lockdown defense, but late-game favors mobile army compositions due to the size of the map and the strength of two-pronged hit-and-run harass. Locking down the defense with a several extra Planetary Fortresses can lock down their side of the map and free up the terran army to get aggressive. Building a stupid amount of barracks can help replenish harassing armies with a zerg-like efficiency -- after all, there are a lot of bases on this map, you'll probably be able to afford it.
All The in-base Xel'Naga plays a critical role in adding stability to the map. Most maps with back door rocks (Jungle Basin, Blistering Sands) are trash, and create an "oh crap" moment where a poorer player can win through silly shenanigans. Not only is the defense of the back door easier here (especially if you don't take the pocket natural), but the Xel'Naga give you forewarning and army composition. Once the rocks are down, the Xel'Naga gives you forewarning if the attacker doesn't take the long way around to harass. It also reduces the air threat like muta harass, forcing the mutas to take longer paths around to hit the base lest the tower scout them. So don't forget to use it! (Also, Protoss, you can place a pylon next to the destructible rocks and warp in to their pocket natural, but the Xel'Naga tower will scout it. If you know they don't have the tower, though...)
The raised expansion has a gas near the cliff facing the enemy. This vulnerability can be exploited by all three races, sniping off the extractor and limiting the player's gas income. Unlike Tal'Darim alter, however, this is a 3rd/4th expansion, so the effect is less extreme while being easier to execute.
And one final note on the gold, watch for ninja expands there. They're not on the main path or rocked, so it might just happen. But, if you or your opponent does take the gold, defenses will be stretched thin: it's a LONG walk distance to defend the gold and the back of your main base.
This was originaly made for the asymetric map challenge, so it's a 3 players asymetric map. Each spawn has a highground main (with a drop/tech hiding spot), middleground natural and 2 possible 3rds (one on middle ground and one on low ground), in addition there are 2 golds and 2 islands for a total of 16 bases, 3 xelnaga towers, destructible rocks to open additionnal attack paths and some LoSB madness.
Map thread : not available (insufficient vespene gas
)
Was hoping you're gonna submit that one! But man, what happened to the swamp
first map on motm and first map i actually tried on making, symetry isnt EXACT but close enough, as u can see from mid bases, if they were exact symetry, you couldnt fit a base into one the way i wanted them to look. playable on NA (search Ulnar Nightmares). EDIT: (decals fixed ingame, not that many decals, and u get basic idea from the map anyways so w.e)
On September 05 2011 08:34 neobowman wrote: ESV Bardiche Created by: Neobowman, AKA Einhart Based on the Brood War map, "Moonlight Punch Romance" by TwoS. Pronounced: Bar-deesh Destructible rocks obstructing the centre path have 1000 hp and 1 armour each. Line of sight blockers on the edge of the main are uinpathable. High ground at natural is unpathable. Rich mineral fields have 1 rich vespene geyser each.
A small map with a triple path layout. The central path is short but is blocked off with destructible rocks. The other two paths lead to expansions.
Wow, this one's really original. Edit: Why am I always starting page 4 in all the map competition threads?
This is my second ever map. I didn't know about this competition till just now but I based the map off of metalopolis cause I thought it would be easier to balance if it were based on something already balanced
basically the swamp in the middle is covered in LOS blockers and the gold bases are shifted around.
I figured it fit the competition theme because, after all, how much more "Blizzardy" is it possible to get than by basing something off of a Blizzard map and then adding some rocks to it?
This was originaly made for the asymetric map challenge, so it's a 3 players asymetric map. Each spawn has a highground main (with a drop/tech hiding spot), middleground natural and 2 possible 3rds (one on middle ground and one on low ground), in addition there are 2 golds and 2 islands for a total of 16 bases, 3 xelnaga towers, destructible rocks to open additionnal attack paths and some LoSB madness.
Map thread : not available (insufficient vespene gas)
I love the changes you made around the golds. Now the 6 o'clock base won't have as easy of a time 5 base turtling. xD Awesome, awesome map. I thought I might have a shot at the map challenge, but I think yours is a little more dynamic. Would be an awesome map to play on. =D
Hope you do well in the MotM and the Map challenge, I think you deserve a good spot in both.
Might still be alot of mistakes in it since I am so new to this whole thing but I figured I might aswell enter, I mean what harm could it do.
The map is a large map with closepositions turned off.
It is uploaded on EU if you want to try it and if you find anything you feel should be changed just swing by the original thread and give me pointers: Original Thread
Experimental asymmetrical map (the spawns at 5+7 and 9+11 are connected with a small reaper passage and thus you cannot spawn on connected locations). Same spawn look like they might have some advantages but they truely have some disadvantages (minerallines with the most vulnerable to air harass there etc.). Rush distances mostly around 160 (main2main) and 105(nat2nat).
On September 06 2011 01:58 FoxyMayhem wrote: Wow, there are so many entries.
When judging maps for the first 5, do you guys watch replays of them or play them at all, or just "eyeball" it?
I'm actually interested in this as well. My map, at least, looks more bland in an overview than it does in game. Doesn't make much sense, but I think a couple of games should be played on each map, and see how they actually feel. Seems pretty intuitive.
On September 06 2011 01:58 FoxyMayhem wrote: Wow, there are so many entries.
When judging maps for the first 5, do you guys watch replays of them or play them at all, or just "eyeball" it?
im pretty sure the judges all look at the map in depth in the editor, but ive also sent in replays of some of my maps to show how it plays, so they do both.
I was under the assumption they played a game or 2 on each. With acceptions such as the map "rockstin rockder" which would be automaticaly put into top 5 because of its epicness.
Players spawn in left versus right positions. Your first expansion is easy to defend but additional bases are harder to protect. Use of the watch towers provides vision over a large portion of the battlefield.
On September 06 2011 02:34 Gl!tch wrote: I was under the assumption they played a game or 2 on each. With acceptions such as the map "rockstin rockder" which would be automaticaly put into top 5 because of its epicness.
you mean top 1? im not sure if they play on them or if they have a few designated guys to do it, but ill stop acting like i know everything (: awesome maps this month^
Innovation is often more challenging than refinement, especially when the standard map formula had a lot of room for refinement >.< . Unique maps take longer. I need to do a better write-up on Nightmare Hollow, though, that's what I get for submitting in a rush.
Yeah, Dark Matter looks pretty cool, I'm excited to see if those vents are a good idea or just don't work out well. There's also Emerald Jungle, I like the dynamic on that one too, if it plays out like I imagine.
Hey Judges, I did a write-up on Nightmare Hollow, sharing some of the strategy insight I've gained on the map through so much testing. Here it is, copied from the submission post, I'd <3 if you read it:
Protoss can get three bases rather swiftly, but the bases they chose provide vulnerabilities. If they decide to take the pocket natural first they will become vulnerable when expanding to the open natural. Start taking down the rocks, and when they do try to expand they will have to spread their army thin to defend. Expanding to the open natural first is harder due to the open nature of the expansion and abusable cliffs, so punish them for it or double expand. ...And taking down the back rocks is always helpful for harass later in the game when their army isn't parked to defend that back entrance as well.
Air harass is strong on this map due to the layout of the bases and the long rush distances, so phoenix openings may be more viable than the average map. For harass, I saw 4KExO place a Phase Prism on the Xel'Naga like hallway, sending 3 zealots to the raised, gold, and natural expansions.
The raised expansion has a gas near the cliff facing the enemy. This vulnerability can be exploited by all three races, sniping off the extractor and limiting the player's gas income. Unlike Tal'Darim alter, however, this is a 3rd/4th expansion, so the effect is less extreme while being easier to execute.
Zerg can expand swiftly. Be ware, any fast expanding on your part will often be met with a double-expand from them. Pressure to punish them and keep then from properly droning to 3 full base, or surprise them with a powerful 1-base push. Parts of the middle are wide open, so keep your back to a cliff or the acid pools in the center, and beware of counterattacks. Also, there are plenty of lovely high-ground patches for Zergs to place their overlords. Don't build your tech at your ramp if you don't want it to get scouted, or make sure to clear the overlord off the nearby high ground.
Terran have many options for early-game pressure. There is an almost lost-temple like high ground next to the open natural (balanced by the option of expanding to the safe pocket natural), and I'm sure terrans will have plenty of fun with that. Or, they can even forgo Medivacs and begin their assault on the open natural by placing tanks on the raised expansion. Due to the layout of the bases, banshee harass is strong throughout every stage of the game. Siege tanks can be used to lockdown defense, but late-game favors mobile army compositions due to the size of the map and the strength of two-pronged hit-and-run harass. Locking down the defense with a several extra Planetary Fortresses can lock down their side of the map and free up the terran army to get aggressive. Building a stupid amount of barracks can help replenish harassing armies with a zerg-like efficiency -- after all, there are a lot of bases on this map, you'll probably be able to afford it.
The in-base Xel'Naga plays a critical role in adding stability to the map. Most maps with back door rocks (Jungle Basin, Blistering Sands) are trash, and create an "oh crap" moment where a poorer player can win through silly shenanigans. Not only is the defense of the back door easier here (especially if you don't take the pocket natural), but the Xel'Naga give you forewarning and army composition. Once the rocks are down, the Xel'Naga gives you forewarning if the attacker doesn't take the long way around to harass. It also reduces the air threat like muta harass, forcing the mutas to take longer paths around to hit the base lest the tower scout them. So don't forget to use it!
And one final note on the gold, watch for ninja expands there. They're not on the main path or rocked, so it might just happen. But, if you or your opponent does take the gold, defenses will be stretched thin: it's a LONG walk distance to defend the gold and the back of your main base.
The most unique feature of this remake of the SC:BW map Harmony is the backdoor expansion which can be mined from either inside the main or from outside. It has one more gas and two more minerals from the outside. You can open up the expansion by harvesting the green mineral patches blocking it, which can not be harvested by MULEs. LoS blockers prevent Blink Stalkers from abusing the backdoor without vision and LoS blockers on the small nat entrance make it harder for attackers, especially bunker rushes. Gold bases also have a rich geyser and watchtowers have a custom model. There is basically no air space at the borders of the map, making airplay and drops very hard.
-2 player map somewhat defined by it's two high ground "prongs" which cover expansions beyond ones natural. -Gold third is overlooked by a pathable cliff. -Walls between mains and "prongs" have some unbuildable area to prevent hidden pylon warp in shenanigans.
On September 06 2011 07:48 Grebliv wrote: ESV Derelict by grebliv
-2 player map somewhat defined by it's two high ground "prongs" which cover expansions beyond ones natural. -Gold third is overlooked by a pathable cliff. -Walls between mains and "prongs" have some unbuildable area to prevent hidden pylon warp in shenanigans.
I love watching MOTM, it's just awesome to see all these new maps!
My one criticism is that it's impossible to find the VOD's for this. There are some on MrBitter's youtube, some on ESLtv, etc. It would be great if there was an MOTM youtube channel for all the VODs of all the MOTMs.
- nats connected by backdoor and low ground area. Allows you to take the other nat as a third. - 2 3x nat ramps in front - a LoSB pocket right outside nat ramps. A small Destr statue inside. The small high ground next to it is pathable. - XNTs at similar position as Shakuras, but are reached from the path by the thirds. Each tower spies 1/2 of the middle path. Towers will help you secure “your” side, or help atking the thirds. - reaper-paths connecting the 12 and 6 expos and mains. Big units can’t be dropped on the path. - droppable high ground area behind the 12 and 6 expos.
2 Player map 12 MineralLines (2 Gold) each with 2 Geysirs tight middle, so counterattacks will be difficult and it encourages exhausting macrogames. third can be taken either at the gold or at the safer backdoor expo. most boarders arent cliffs but doodads, only highgrounds are the main, the 5th and the middle.
PS: there are some bugfixes after the analyzed version
A 3 player asymmetric map originally created for the asymmetric mapping challenge. The goal is, of course, to find balance in the inbalance. By the way, the water near the top spawn does NOT look like that in game. See upcoming map thread for some detail shots of it.
2 Player Map, Forced Cross Positions 14 Bases (2 Gold) Big map with lots of paths, chokes and bases. You always spawn in cross positions from your opponent, but the two sets of spawns are very different which should add some extra depth to the map.
Link to thread but this is a little outdated, the map has had a fairly significant update tonight for this and I haven't edited the thread yet. I shall try to do that tomorrow ^^Updated
*Edit: Awww, I stayed up til 4:00 working on this for the deadline...
damn you guys really got some nice shakuras textures. i lovvvvee me some non custom tilesets this has to be the best outing of motm maps yet. people are starting to get wayy better than me better step it up again oh and nice map meltage.
Check the map thread for details. I picked this map out of my three published maps simply because I think it might be the least hard to swallow. I like to try to make a lot of "no-no's" theoretically workable. If I had time and motivation I would pretty this up for the contest, but it's going as is. The map thread picture is slightly different because I widened a few ramps just slightly before I published the map. I actually had a completely different idea I wanted to submit but there is no way it is going to be in time for this competition, so instead of letting the opportunity pass, I submit this one. Link To Map Thread
So far I count 10 maps that could very well make top5 (+my map which I can't be objective about), half of them very innovative, half of them very solid. Competition is getting so sick, and it's sad to think about the maps that won't be picked for top5 but are still excellent pieces of hard work.
The tournament and the showmatches are gonna be so cool, I can't wait
(I literally can't wait, why did you push the deadline back )
On September 06 2011 18:16 Ragoo wrote: So far I count 10 maps that could very well make top5 (+my map which I can't be objective about), half of them very innovative, half of them very solid. Competition is getting so sick, and it's sad to think about the maps that won't be picked for top5 but are still excellent pieces of hard work.
The tournament and the showmatches are gonna be so cool, I can't wait
(I literally can't wait, why did you push the deadline back )
That is the issue I had with last month, I found it very very hard to pick out a map i liked the most. Were some incredible maps to choose from!
ya offiticial statement would be nice i've sent in so many updates i dont wanna make s.b. argue about too many mails though. but there is an issue i wanna fix
Actually it used to be 1 submission only, no updates. I was denied to resubmit once, long time ago though, maybe motm 4 or 5 or something like that. However maps that made top5 have always been allowed to fix mistakes before the tournament begins. So if you miss a water tile, even though it is dead obvious in the middle of the map ( haha ) I am sure you will have to chance to fix it before or after submissions are done.
For the future please have your maps ready on submission date, this is supposed to be a 1 time only exception due to the chaotic situation at the end of the month. If you look at all the past MotM's, submission stop has always been between the 4th and the 8th of the month so please have it ready by then.
I actually just got my confirmation email :p So at least mine got in ok. Good luck to everybodeh though, this is one insane competition nowadays. It's like everyone's getting better as quickly as I am. D:
On September 07 2011 14:07 Gl!tch wrote: Good job getting the MotM plug on SotG FlopTurnReaver.
Indeed! Here here!
Uhg, is this map exposure thing a problem only Blizzard can solve? Could teams like FXO help spread their use by using them in their tournies?
Look forward to some exciting stuff from ESL! We all know that is a huge problem. We've been building up so far, and every month we get bigger and bigger. Soon, Map of the Month WILL be attracting top pros. And you'll be seeing Maps in major tournaments.
*Note, this could be Blizzard Soon. But we're trying!
On September 07 2011 14:07 Gl!tch wrote: Good job getting the MotM plug on SotG FlopTurnReaver.
Indeed! Here here!
Uhg, is this map exposure thing a problem only Blizzard can solve? Could teams like FXO help spread their use by using them in their tournies?
Look forward to some exciting stuff from ESL! We all know that is a huge problem. We've been building up so far, and every month we get bigger and bigger. Soon, Map of the Month WILL be attracting top pros. And you'll be seeing Maps in major tournaments.
*Note, this could be Blizzard Soon. But we're trying!
The dream!.
Now I just need to find someone who enjoys and is good at the artistic/aethetic part of map making. The texturing/doodads/pretty.
I am terrible with all of this and have seen some amazing work done, I just enjoy doing layouts/designs more.
Maybe its because i follow esports so closely, and am masters level, my importance mentally lies in their design and playability rather than their looks. =/.
Don't think it matters that much anymore if Tyler and Incontrol have time to play our maps... MotM now has ESL and thus probably EU tournament/showmatches in the future and apparently they also have a big announcement to make and the ESV guys have their Korean Weekly and they have a huge announcement to make as well, so imho things are going very well right now
Yeah, the question got picked but the answer wasnt all to promising. Basicaly, pro players wont want to play on map's that arent in any tournament pool's. No matter how creative/good they are, like the ones we see here at MotM. I totaly understand that... hopefuly with the ESL hookup the MotM winners get more map publicity, and possibly tournament use.
I cant think of a greater reward than to watch a tourny and think "Whoa dude cool map, oh yeah i made it"
On September 07 2011 14:07 Gl!tch wrote: Good job getting the MotM plug on SotG FlopTurnReaver.
Oh it got picket?^^
Awesome
only Tyler & iNcontrol answered something like: " yeah, we don´t have time or incentive to play those maps"... then JP moved on to next question.
Dissapointed...
Yeah the response didn't really go in the direction i was hoping it would. But it's hard to ask a clear question with the few letters possible on Twitter
Nice try Flop, but we already knew the answer, players don't want new maps, the real question is wich tournament will have enough balls to put some custom maps in their map pool. We can't rely on players, players are mapmakers worst ennemies, viewers are the ones who may want new maps, we have to convince sponsors and tournaments, not players. Once tournaments and sponsors understand that viewing the same map for the 19784687476th time is boring then maybe mapmakers have a chance.
It works in Korea and there's no reason why it whouldn't work here. I was more interested about their opinion about the future of custom maps in ladder/tournament pools and if they'd like to see that. Well yeah they actually answered that one.
My problem is not even that the Blizzard maps are getting boring with time. It's more that they are just effing terrible.
fenx is 100% correct. tournaments need to be attractive to viewers and sponsors, not to players. the players will play anyway if they want some of the prizemoney.
Just a reminder, dudes, we're running the semis for motm #9 in about ten minutes.
As for tournaments including custom maps in their pools...
ESL is working with MotM to get a very special custom map into the IEM pool. I can't say any more than its a work in progress, but there are some very special things coming from ESL for the custom mapping community.
Is there only the semifinals today? Bo5 I got from Rotterdams twitter. I can´t find any infos on Liquipedia or ESL site. With DdoRo vs ViBE and dde vs FireZerg I think so updates might be good. Hope I´m just not blind. Aaaand, including the standing in the overlay might be good, just tuned in and don´t know the result. I think this is the second map now?
E: And is this casted from replays? Is the MotM twitter with + Show Spoiler +
@MapOfTheMonth MapOfTheMonth Congratulations to funcmode and DDE for winning the MotM# contest and tournament! Also thanks to @esltv for the great cast!
The second week of Map of the Month. We'll see the likes of DDE, Ddore, Firezerg and Vibe in action tonight live on ESL TV. We might see MrBitter and RotterdaM duke it out as well, just to give an extra flavour to the show!
Today the semi finals will be played. The matches are Ddore vs Vibe and DDE vs Firezerg. Enjoy these top american players battling it out for 100 $ live on ESL TV.
On September 08 2011 03:51 MrBitter wrote: Just a reminder, dudes, we're running the semis for motm #9 in about ten minutes.
As for tournaments including custom maps in their pools...
ESL is working with MotM to get a very special custom map into the IEM pool. I can't say any more than its a work in progress, but there are some very special things coming from ESL for the custom mapping community.
semis of motm #9 when the submission date still havent hit, using motm #8 maps. You sure you dint make a typo there?
On September 08 2011 04:21 Hondelul wrote: Is there only the semifinals today? Bo5 I got from Rotterdams twitter. I can´t find any infos on Liquipedia or ESL site. With DdoRo vs ViBE and dde vs FireZerg I think so updates might be good. Hope I´m just not blind. Aaaand, including the standing in the overlay might be good, just tuned in and don´t know the result. I think this is the second map now?
E: And is this casted from replays? Is the MotM twitter with + Show Spoiler +
@MapOfTheMonth MapOfTheMonth Congratulations to funcmode and DDE for winning the MotM# contest and tournament! Also thanks to @esltv for the great cast!
The second week of Map of the Month. We'll see the likes of DDE, Ddore, Firezerg and Vibe in action tonight live on ESL TV. We might see MrBitter and RotterdaM duke it out as well, just to give an extra flavour to the show!
Today the semi finals will be played. The matches are Ddore vs Vibe and DDE vs Firezerg. Enjoy these top american players battling it out for 100 $ live on ESL TV.
On September 07 2011 14:07 Gl!tch wrote: Good job getting the MotM plug on SotG FlopTurnReaver.
Indeed! Here here!
Uhg, is this map exposure thing a problem only Blizzard can solve? Could teams like FXO help spread their use by using them in their tournies?
Look forward to some exciting stuff from ESL! We all know that is a huge problem. We've been building up so far, and every month we get bigger and bigger. Soon, Map of the Month WILL be attracting top pros. And you'll be seeing Maps in major tournaments.
*Note, this could be Blizzard Soon. But we're trying!
Oh, I am excited! And if you guys need help somehow, I'll do what I can. <3 Thanks for trying so hard to make Starcraft better.
On September 07 2011 14:07 Gl!tch wrote: Good job getting the MotM plug on SotG FlopTurnReaver.
Indeed! Here here!
Uhg, is this map exposure thing a problem only Blizzard can solve? Could teams like FXO help spread their use by using them in their tournies?
Look forward to some exciting stuff from ESL! We all know that is a huge problem. We've been building up so far, and every month we get bigger and bigger. Soon, Map of the Month WILL be attracting top pros. And you'll be seeing Maps in major tournaments.
*Note, this could be Blizzard Soon. But we're trying!
The dream!.
Now I just need to find someone who enjoys and is good at the artistic/aethetic part of map making. The texturing/doodads/pretty.
I am terrible with all of this and have seen some amazing work done, I just enjoy doing layouts/designs more.
Maybe its because i follow esports so closely, and am masters level, my importance mentally lies in their design and playability rather than their looks. =/.
I think dividing the responsibilities of balance and aesthetics between two mappers is a really, really good practice. It allows us to raise then end-quality of maps with less time invested from each individual, and since this is a hobby, getting pro results without pro investment is a really good thing.
On FenX's point, I don't think we should ever treat the players like enemies. It's not their fault that logic dictates they avoid our maps, and animosity is deconstructive to the goals of the mapmaking community. Hopefully ESL is the start of something great. <3 Looking forward to the future!
Can someone from MotM or MrBitter tell me if the future tournaments are on EU with EU pros or is it still going to be the same NA players as always in the tournament?
On September 08 2011 05:37 Ragoo wrote: Can someone from MotM or MrBitter tell me if the future tournaments are on EU with EU pros or is it still going to be the same NA players as always in the tournament?
Hopefully it'll be opening up to an international player pool.
What server we play on... well, that'll be up to the players.
Is there a chance that maybe one MoTM is in future considered for the ESL map pool, so the really great maps get promoted besides the MotM tournament??
Unfortunately because of IRL stuff, we did not manage to get all the doodads and map borders in order for MotM #9. Hopefully this will be fixed soon, but as MotM #10 only allows Blizzard maps I have to submit it now, despite its incomplete state.
More information will arrive soon, still need to finish map borders.
On September 08 2011 08:26 NullCurrent wrote: TPW Concrete Dreams Layout: NullCurrent Aesthetics: NullCurrent, Johanaz, Meltage and Lefix
Unfortunately because of IRL stuff, we did not manage to get all the doodads and map borders in order for MotM #9. Hopefully this will be fixed soon, but as MotM #10 only allows Blizzard maps I have to submit it now, despite its incomplete state.
More information will arrive soon, still need to finish map borders.
Wait. So this map is exactly as terminus? Or is it smaller?
Layout is incredibly similar to terminus, not a bad thing but just something to point out Love the aesthetics works so far, though. Are there custom destructible rocks? Or are my eyes deceiving me?
On September 08 2011 13:02 Sea_Food wrote: Wait. So this map is exactly as terminus? Or is it smaller?
Not gonna lie but this is exactly what I was thinking about when I saw the layout. Looking forward to a map thread though so I can actually check out everything about it.
Unfortunately for me I won't be submitting a map this month. TF2, LoL and RL Family stuff got in the way this month.
It looks like it could be a better Terminous to my first look. The higher exposure of the third, the wide-open exit the third provides, the more accessible fourth, and I like the way the mirrored segments connect.
On September 08 2011 04:46 FoxyMayhem wrote: On FenX's point, I don't think we should ever treat the players like enemies. It's not their fault that logic dictates they avoid our maps, and animosity is deconstructive to the goals of the mapmaking community. Hopefully ESL is the start of something great. <3 Looking forward to the future!
Well I said that without animosity, we're not going to kill each other, and mapmakers are also viewers and players, plus without players it would be pointless to create maps. But let's face it : what the majority of players wants and what mapmakers want is the exact opposite, and right now the situation is more favorable to players, if we want to bring mapmaking to a better place we'll have to go against players sometimes. Tournament who will choose to use custom maps will probably get a lot of criticisms from players, it already happens every time Blizzard release new maps, it will happen for custom maps as well. That's why it's hard to convince tournaments to use custom maps, they're afraid to loose some good players who will choose to go to tournaments that don't use unknown maps. If they don't have any good players they'll loose viewers too.
Mr Bitter and ESL are pulling things in the right direction, really thank you for supporting mapmaking, it's a first step and I really hope it will success and show the way for other tournaments.
Btw, not every pro is totally against new maps. I think many appreciate new balanced maps and for example some months ago Hasuobs said several times that Xel'Naga Caverns shouldn't be used anymore, not because it's so imba but because it's so overplayed and everyone knows all the ins and outs of it.
On September 10 2011 09:34 IronManSC wrote: They said the 12th in the OP, and then I think they changed it to the 10th.
Didnt they change it from 10th to 12th?
Also, is iGork on vacation or something since the OP is not updated with the map submissions. I remember last time them all being on the OP last motm when submission time ended.
On September 10 2011 09:34 IronManSC wrote: They said the 12th in the OP, and then I think they changed it to the 10th.
Didnt they change it from 10th to 12th?
Also, is iGork on vacation or something since the OP is not updated with the map submissions. I remember last time them all being on the OP last motm when submission time ended.
That's because I made the thread last month
The finalists will be announced sometime on the 12th, sorry for the confusion.
On September 11 2011 08:12 LunaSaint wrote: No, it's already in next season's ladder pool, so it was disqualified sadly. Gives everyone else a chance to win though.
No, he said he's not putting it in map pool (too advanced)
Unfortunately because of IRL stuff, we did not manage to get all the doodads and map borders in order for MotM #9. Hopefully this will be fixed soon, but as MotM #10 only allows Blizzard maps I have to submit it now, despite its incomplete state.
More information will arrive soon, still need to finish map borders.
Just played on this, aesthetics are probably the best I have ever seen! One small suggestion, I think the units are a bit too dark.
It's really Terminus 2.0, imo the way you redesigned the first three bases is really nice. The proportions also feel way better like this, Terminus is a bit too big. And I love how all the expansions connect and I also prefer the lowground middle with the one tower. Overall absolute fantastic work, would be very surprised if this wasn't top5 and I'm looking forward to see awesome matches on this
On September 03 2011 00:37 iGrok wrote: October's Map of the Month competition will feature a special twist. You must design a map Blizzard-style! Now, I know we often criticize Blizzard-made maps. But its up to us to show that Maps made in Blizzard's style can be viable!
So, what does "Blizzard-style" mean?
1. Blue bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers
2. Gold bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers
3. Pick a tileset and stick to it! And no custom textures or models!
It is often said that you are most creative when you limit yourself (usually in better words - I'm not a poet). And that's what we're trying to achieve here! Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.
*Note: The Bel'Shir restriction is removed for October.
Are rotational symmetry maps allowed, because I think blizzards hasn't made one yet... :S
On September 03 2011 00:37 iGrok wrote: October's Map of the Month competition will feature a special twist. You must design a map Blizzard-style! Now, I know we often criticize Blizzard-made maps. But its up to us to show that Maps made in Blizzard's style can be viable!
So, what does "Blizzard-style" mean?
1. Blue bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers
2. Gold bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers
3. Pick a tileset and stick to it! And no custom textures or models!
It is often said that you are most creative when you limit yourself (usually in better words - I'm not a poet). And that's what we're trying to achieve here! Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.
*Note: The Bel'Shir restriction is removed for October.
Are rotational symmetry maps allowed, because I think blizzards hasn't made one yet... :S
Abyssal Caverns? (It's either that or Nerazim Crypt), Backwater Gulch
On September 03 2011 00:37 iGrok wrote: October's Map of the Month competition will feature a special twist. You must design a map Blizzard-style! Now, I know we often criticize Blizzard-made maps. But its up to us to show that Maps made in Blizzard's style can be viable!
So, what does "Blizzard-style" mean?
1. Blue bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers
2. Gold bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers
3. Pick a tileset and stick to it! And no custom textures or models!
It is often said that you are most creative when you limit yourself (usually in better words - I'm not a poet). And that's what we're trying to achieve here! Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.
*Note: The Bel'Shir restriction is removed for October.
Are rotational symmetry maps allowed, because I think blizzards hasn't made one yet... :S
Abyssal Caverns? (It's either that or Nerazim Crypt), Backwater Gulch
Antiga Shipyard, Nerazim Crypt, Backwater Gulch, and TalDarim (not blizzard, but it's "blizzard" now) are all rotational symmetry.
Unfortunately because of IRL stuff, we did not manage to get all the doodads and map borders in order for MotM #9. Hopefully this will be fixed soon, but as MotM #10 only allows Blizzard maps I have to submit it now, despite its incomplete state.
More information will arrive soon, still need to finish map borders.
Just played on this, aesthetics are probably the best I have ever seen! One small suggestion, I think the units are a bit too dark.
It's really Terminus 2.0, imo the way you redesigned the first three bases is really nice. The proportions also feel way better like this, Terminus is a bit too big. And I love how all the expansions connect and I also prefer the lowground middle with the one tower. Overall absolute fantastic work, would be very surprised if this wasn't top5 and I'm looking forward to see awesome matches on this
Thanks! As I wrote, we're still working on the aesthetics of Concrete Dreams but we're coming close to finishing it. One thing we're tweaking is the lighting to make it easier to differentiate units from terrain (the submitted variant is, as you said, a bit dark when it comes to units). And to make it even more awesome we have added about 1200 doodads
About the top-5 placement I'm a bit unsure, as it was submitted as an unfinished variant and lots of other maps seem to be really good candidates. So I don't know, but one can hope
Geysers were always normal afaik, I don't think Blizzard ever used Rich Geysers.
Also Scrap Station's Semi Islands only have 6 mineral patches, but other than that the 8min+2gas thing is true.
Btw are we allowed to change the color of a doodad, change water and change lighting? Maybe lighting is a bit much cause it changes how the textures look completely but please allow doodad colors and water
I think some blizz maps use custom lighting. Metalopolis has night lighting, even though korhal has daytime lighting as default.
For symmetry, I think Blizzard has used most types of symmetry for 4 spawn and 2 spawn maps. they even have a single 3 player map with rotational symmetry.
On September 13 2011 01:36 IronManSC wrote: So the submission list is not updated, and today is the day the finalists will be announced. Scramble much?
We're roughly on schedule. No submission list because we were focusing on other things and just forgot.
On September 03 2011 00:37 iGrok wrote: October's Map of the Month competition will feature a special twist. You must design a map Blizzard-style! Now, I know we often criticize Blizzard-made maps. But its up to us to show that Maps made in Blizzard's style can be viable!
So, what does "Blizzard-style" mean?
1. Blue bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers
2. Gold bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers
3. Pick a tileset and stick to it! And no custom textures or models!
It is often said that you are most creative when you limit yourself (usually in better words - I'm not a poet). And that's what we're trying to achieve here! Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.
*Note: The Bel'Shir restriction is removed for October.
Are rotational symmetry maps allowed, because I think blizzards hasn't made one yet... :S
Abyssal Caverns? (It's either that or Nerazim Crypt), Backwater Gulch
Antiga Shipyard, Nerazim Crypt, Backwater Gulch, and TalDarim (not blizzard, but it's "blizzard" now) are all rotational symmetry.
blizz rotational 1v1 maps that were once in the ladder pool: Xel Naga Caverns, Steppes of War, Blistering Sands, Desert Oasis, Jungle Basin, Delta Quadrant, Antiga Shipyard, Nerazim Crypt, Backwater Gulch
blizz rotational 1v1 maps that were never in the ladder pool: Agria Valley, Burial Grounds, Junk Yard, Worldship, Elysium
There are about 17 other blizz rotational maps (not meant for 1v1) - I'll name them if you really want.
That's a total of 32 blizz maps with rotational symmetry.
ya, sorry for my dumb post, should have thought longer about that... It's just that I had blocked Blackwater and Delta Quadrant and haven't played a single laddergame in season 3... And though I get that those named 2player maps hae rotational symmetrie, I don't consider them as such, as there is no positional imbalance.
Oh submission already closed and finalists about to be announced? Let's make some predictions then. Top 4 are very clear for me, I'm really sad if I don't see ESV Taonas and LoS_Dark Matter (for awesome innovative layout) and TPW Concrete Dreams and TPW Overgrown (because they make solid maps that we know more awesome and have very nice aesthetics). Last spot I would prefer ESV Bardiche or TPW Tenarsis.
Notable mentions that I wouldn't mind taking the last spot that much: TPW Emerald Jungle, Rockstin Rockder ( ), TPW Ohana, TPW Damage Inc. , Monlyth Memories, ESV Derelict or my very own Harmony.
Once again it was a very hard month to choose a top 5 of. There were so many different great styles of maps and we also have different opinions and that makes it even harder to get to a final decicion. This month to judge your submissions we had monitor, LSPrime, Barrin, funcmode and FlopTurnReaver.
The Top 5 of the Map of the Month #9 are as follows:
Congratulations to this months winners. We from MotM are very excited for the upcoming tournament, I hope you're too. The tournament dates will be announced later, hopefully earlier than next month
Also you will again be able to read a little something about some of the submitted maps, there's gonna be some writeups later in this thread. Also this month will also feature some Special Awards again.
If you don't want to miss any of the action you can follow us on twitter @MapOfTheMonth.
Thanks to everyone out there, submitters, tournament players and of course viewers, you keep Map of the Month alive and we're very thankful for that. Also I'd once again like to say that great things are to come in the future
Kinda sad that none of the maps with really crazy features were chosen, now I can only hope that ESV Tanoas will be used in the ESV Korean Weekly someday^^
edit: Really looking forward to read the writeups about many of these maps later
Congratulations to the top five map winners! This month was a very tough (as usual) for us to choose the best five, because we were very happy with all of the maps. Good work everybody!
On September 13 2011 10:02 monitor wrote: Congratulations to the top five map winners! This month was a very tough (as usual) for us to choose the best five, because we were very happy with all of the maps. Good work everybody!
couple of complaints but overall great choices. emerald jungle seems too safe a choice for the top 5, we've had like 10 maps like that over the course of motm. overgrown, is literally shakuras plateau with a few changes and not the texturing prowess that it could be. thought dark matter and damage could be in the top 5.
On September 13 2011 10:37 WniO wrote: couple of complaints but overall great choices. emerald jungle seems too safe a choice for the top 5, we've had like 10 maps like that over the course of motm. overgrown, is literally shakuras plateau with a few changes and not the texturing prowess that it could be. thought dark matter and damage could be in the top 5.
On September 13 2011 10:46 iGrok wrote: I wanted Dark Matter and Damage Inc.
QQ
Seems we have the same opinion about these 2 maps. Emerald Jungle is overall a good map, but it's really not striking and is kinda unoriginal. Overgrown is just a RE of Shakuras Plateau, but not well done in terms of openness(to big imo), map layout almost pure copy of Shakuras, texture are kinda refreshing in term of new tileset, but it's a bit plain and there is not section of the map that are different(no contrast).
I would have prefer TPW Damage Inc. and LoS_Dark Matter.
Also the other 3 maps are good choice. I'm probably betting on a ESV map to win this month.
Hope to see some great games this tourney, it's nice to see some 2 player maps in the map pool now that the ladder doesn't have any (XNC is dead to me).
ESV Derelict Seems it'll be very hard to get off 2 base on this map. (Maybe judges thought 2base vs 2base was fine?) You're pretty much forced to take the gold as your 3rd otherwise if you take the blue base as your third you spread yourself out very thin as well as have to move 1/2 way across the map. It also puts you at a huge disadvantage with the high ground right outside that third. Although for zergs it will force you to take the 3rd at the blue minerals because doing anything else will be too difficult to hold due to how choky it is.
Emerald Jungle No offense but how did this map get top 5? It's your normal jungle map with the same main/nat/third setup we see in every four player map. Golds will never be taken except only by a team if they are completely dominating and then taking the gold will just push them even farther ahead.
TPW Overgrown I know it's suppose to be a better version of shakuras but all I see is just the "zerg" version of shakuras. Naturals aren't as safe, thirds are much more open, so many more attack paths. Seems now instead of Terran & Protoss doing better on the map, Zerg will crush...and crush hard. Makes me feel this map was picked just because of the aesthetics.
TPW Tenarsis I like, with the exception I'd rather see the ramp on the mains sticking out of the other side so the 3rd would be the natural. Right now to take the golds they would have to be your 4th base. I think it would be better if you had the option to either take the gold as your third although riskier, or take the safer blue 3rd that's tucked away. Another problem is the same old Main/Nat/Third setup.
ps. I didnt submit a map this month so I can't be biased! (right...? lol)
I think I like innovative mapfeatures and original layouts more than most people here. Although when it's about a tournament with prize money played by progamers, you have to decide between innovative and balanced/well executed maps. Don't think we didn't discuss any of the from you guys mentioned maps. To be honest, it really sucks if you have to reject a really cool concept because the execution wasn't as thought out as it could've.
If you have any questions about results, your map etc. even after the write ups, feel free to contact any of the judges.
On September 13 2011 11:12 SidianTheBard wrote: ESV Bardiche New layout, should be exciting.
Thanks
On September 13 2011 11:12 SidianTheBard wrote: ESV Derelict Seems it'll be very hard to get off 2 base on this map. (Maybe judges thought 2base vs 2base was fine?) You're pretty much forced to take the gold as your 3rd otherwise if you take the blue base as your third you spread yourself out very thin as well as have to move 1/2 way across the map. It also puts you at a huge disadvantage with the high ground right outside that third. Although for zergs it will force you to take the 3rd at the blue minerals because doing anything else will be too difficult to hold due to how choky it is.
Yeah, I agree it'll be tough to get a third, but I think the blue minerals will be what you're forced to get. If you actually measure ground distance, the blue mineral expo is much closer.
On September 13 2011 11:12 SidianTheBard wrote: Emerald Jungle No offense but how did this map get top 5? It's your normal jungle map with the same main/nat/third setup we see in every four player map. Golds will never be taken except only by a team if they are completely dominating and then taking the gold will just push them even farther ahead.
I actually think this is one of the best maps this month.It has an creative path setup combined with a standard expo placement to make positioning battles a lot more entertaining. Other than how there are no actual flaws, the map plays out really differently depending on what spawns you get. If you get vertical, the it's going to be a shorter micro based game with a Zerg trying to expand away from his enemy while the Terran/Toss pushes in towards the gold while trying to keep his forces together. Cross position you get a wild macro game where the expo and path layout force a lot of repositioning and backstab threats from a Zerg, or a crazy TvT.
To be honest, it really sucks if you have to reject a really cool concept because the execution wasn't as thought out as it could've.
Emerald and Overgrown are both very similar; Emerald being somewhat similar to Shakuras on its side, but you can forgive Emerald as it changes up much of the paths which makes it far more interesting ... but Overgrown is even just a shakuras retexture at best. Execution ... Innovative ... wut?
As there is no thread for Derelict, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this map as to why the judges feel this is a tournament quality map too (with respect to the base layout and map size). Or even why Tenarsis is there over, even, Flamestrike or Ohana, Damage Inc, and many others.
I respectfully chose not to voice a comment after you guys selected Artifice last time, but with the consideration of Overgrown, MOTM pretty much starting to look like a joke to me. While Funcmode already had a pretty generic 4p map in the overall map pool, seeing another highly similar, plain, and uninspiring map like Artifice make the overall winner over many of the other maps, is quite mind boggling.
If you guys are just going to pick these kinds of maps ... I don't even know what the point of this "organization" / "competition" is anymore, aside from being a TPW party in a hat.
Artifice isn't the most exciting or creative map, but it's beautiful, refined and is still very different to the 4 player maps used in tournaments today. It does share some similarity to Crevasse, but that map is already out of many map pools, and its main imbalances - the centre high ground and excessive size are much better in Artifice.
Emerald is very different considering the more limited space a 4-player map provides, and while Overgrown might be just an altered Shakuras, we're aiming to make maps that are a lot better than ladder maps anyway. The reason TPW and ESV win 90% of the time is because they have the resources and contacts to have some really solid testing, iterating and refinement on maps. You'll notice that most of their work is not made by just one person.
My maps are nowhere near half as refined as what these people churn out, and that's no surprise. (Though admittedly, I don't spend nearly enough time on my maps)
Either way, just sit tight and wait for the judges' opinions to be posted.
On September 13 2011 13:00 LunaSaint wrote:Either way, just sit tight and wait for the judges' opinions to be posted.
I'm not really familiar with the turn-around on the judges' feedback, is that something we should expect tonight or no?
EDIT: lol, Luna, look at our post counts XD.
Unfortunately we won't be able to get any write-ups out tonight, it'll likely take one to three days. Sorry!
That's fine, Monitor, I'd prefer if they weren't rushed anyway XD. I just wanted to know whether I should be refreshing every 20 mins or just go read a good book. Thank you, guys.
EDIT: Well, I wrecked the syncing with Luna, but now Gl!tch and I have the same post count, ha ha ha. Weird.
On September 13 2011 12:34 FoxyMayhem wrote: I would also appreciate the judges thoughts on Nightmare Hollow.
I'll give you my thoughts, even though I'm no longer a judge.
Until some high level testing is done on maps with backdoors into the back of the main, and they are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to not be imbalanced, its very unlikely that it'll get picked. Perhaps look at Crossfire, and how that backdoor worked vs the Jungle Basin one.
If you guys are just going to pick these kinds of maps ... I don't even know what the point of this "organization" / "competition" is anymore, aside from being a TPW party in a hat.
If you look at the maps chosen each month, there certainly is a certain formula. In general (and this changes, but again, in general), the judges pick 1 really clean macro map, 1 rather small map, 1 map that shows something really new, and 2 maps that are just good for whatever reason. We can see that this month. TPW Emerald Jungle is a really clean Macro map. ESV Bardiche is rather small. ESV Tenarsis introduces something new, as it is one of the few 2p maps to offer multiple expansion paths.
LunaSaint really hit the nail on the head though - TPW and ESV have the best chances of getting a map in because their maps tend to just be more refined. The more times a map is played, and the more feedback (and high-quality feedback) you get, and finally the better you are at responding to feedback on a map, the better the end result will be.
As always, I'm happy to offer feedback on anyone's maps - just send me a pm through skype!
And finally, if the owner of Rockstin Rocker would submit the mapfile, we'd appreciate it!
On the one hand I can't find fault with the top 5, because those are great maps. On the other hand, I can't help but feel a tinge of disappoint that some of the cooler ideas aren't finalists (Dark Matter). However, this pretty much sums it up:
On September 13 2011 11:23 FlopTurnReaver wrote: I think I like innovative mapfeatures and original layouts more than most people here. Although when it's about a tournament with prize money played by progamers, you have to decide between innovative and balanced/well executed maps. Don't think we didn't discuss any of the from you guys mentioned maps. To be honest, it really sucks if you have to reject a really cool concept because the execution wasn't as thought out as it could've.
And I completely respect the hard decisions the judges have to make! And the damn mapmakers don't make it easy!! ... ;D
Congrats everybody! I'll just offer one opinion that hasn't been touched on yet.
Bardiche has one of the best holistic, integrated group of design choices I've ever seen, so major props for that. The towers on that map are so nicely combined with the routes and the center area.
I am seriously looking forward to this month's games.
On September 13 2011 14:54 iCCup.Diamond wrote: I'm seriously baffled Rockstin Rockder did not make the cut, and have subsequently lost all faith in the judges of MoTM....
Games will have to Show if Derelict has not too many chokes, but I really love it's design overall, its use of cliffs and ramps. It is the most interesting one in my opinion, while I think Emerald is the most solid one.
I think people should stop complaining about motm being whoever's party or that they only promote solid maps. If motm would focus on crazy features only than these maps never had gotten a chance in esl (tv).
In case Emerald wins it all: then the last two motm winners were visually good but also simplistic in a good sense and very solid and balanced (hopefully) - what mire can you ask for really. If this community driven project is successful to motivate and display maps that are better than blizzards and they finally get the recognition and playtime, everybody interested in custom maps should be happy. Remember how we started this and what it is for. I guess back then I posted somewhere that we need some kind if such a format and iGrok was the one picking this up and getting everything organized - fir the sake of fun and also the success of custom maps. So stop complaints, be happy to be part of this comunity and suggest new paths motm should take, e.g. Dynamic mappool instead of last winners, extra price for most innovative map, etc.
On September 13 2011 14:54 iCCup.Diamond wrote: I'm seriously baffled Rockstin Rockder did not make the cut, and have subsequently lost all faith in the judges of MoTM....
Oh wow, this month is going to be difficult. Though I know which map I'm going to vote on and exactly why I'm going to vote on it. Here's a hint (rocks in the middle ).
Quick question about the write-ups, you doing them for all the maps you considered for top5 or just the top5 maps? I'd love to get a write-up on my own map as well (FlameStrike) if that were possible.
On September 13 2011 16:16 Samro225am wrote: Games will have to Show if Derelict has not too many chokes, but I really love it's design overall, its use of cliffs and ramps. It is the most interesting one in my opinion, while I think Emerald is the most solid one.
I think people should stop complaining about motm being whoever's party or that they only promote solid maps. If motm would focus on crazy features only than these maps never had gotten a chance in esl (tv).
In case Emerald wins it all: then the last two motm winners were visually good but also simplistic in a good sense and very solid and balanced (hopefully) - what mire can you ask for really. If this community driven project is successful to motivate and display maps that are better than blizzards and they finally get the recognition and playtime, everybody interested in custom maps should be happy. Remember how we started this and what it is for. I guess back then I posted somewhere that we need some kind if such a format and iGrok was the one picking this up and getting everything organized - fir the sake of fun and also the success of custom maps. So stop complaints, be happy to be part of this comunity and suggest new paths motm should take, e.g. Dynamic mappool instead of last winners, extra price for most innovative map, etc.
I don't know, but I think a map restriction every month would help getting a little more variety in maps. It doesn't have to be a crazy one, but just like next month with the blizzard thing, or things like: backdoor natural double sized main choke (with or without rocks - scrap station was close to being balanced, make it work for Protoss too!, or make something like Crevasse) 3player maps (which was already there, and it was awesome) >4player maps (a really tough one) ...
But apart from maps always being great and solid, I think motm is fine
i think restrictions like specific features (e.g. Crevasse rocks or double sized main choke) make it boring. this would motivate mappers to build maps around a specific feature and balance the map around this only feature. then we have some bad, some good and some very good maps, but not too many diversity in gameplay. I like the "Blizzard-Map" idea much better. I would also like to see a 3p-motm again. Missed the other one.
I agree with everyone who is saying the map choices are way too focused on solid maps instead of innovative new maps. And I don't agree with iGrok that Tenarsis shows something really new, I would say it's a really solid map and we have seen multiple expansion pathes on 2p maps before.
I'm kinda happy that we see more 2 player maps this month, at the same time my thoughts about Derelict were exactly the same as SidianTheBard's and thus far I don't like it.
I'm especially upset that Taonas didn't make it.. we haven't really seen any expansion setup like this, the middle is just really innovative and it's made by motherf***ing Superouman so it can't be that bad Well as I said, hopefully this will be played in Korean Weekly someday.
I think you play it too safe and sadly I'm starting to lose some interest in MotM. I don't think it's too much to ask from pros to play on maps which have uncommon features like Taonas or Dark Matter have. In fact I think there are more custom maps that were really innovative and new when they were introduced than maps that were just solid. + Show Spoiler [list of innovative vs standard maps] +
Really different and new concepts when they were introduced: Crevasse (inbase nat, wide ramp blocked with rock, huge) Terminus (easy three base, huge) Tal'Darim (main choke instead of ramp, huge) Testbug (towers under rocks, rocks at gold don't block main building, 3player map, rich gas) Crossfire (just the whole layout with choke heaven vs counterattacking) Bel'Shir Beach (main choke with little highground, I think when it first came out it was the first map without a tower?!) Xel'Naga Fortress ( just a weird expansion layout after your nat) Neo Enigma (kinda in between but I think gold as third is still uncommon) Sanshorn Mists (also in between but when everyone thought islands were dead, ESV picks this map) Katrina (full inbase nat, whole layout) Ithaca (destructible watchtowers)
Maps that were rather standard when introduced: Dual Sight (still has the weird texturing+towers) Daybreak Pawn Re Starlight Breaker Odyssey
I would list all of the top 5 in standard except for Bardiche, that map is weird So yeah, GSL, ESV and ESL are constantly introducing maps to the players that they are not used to and now that you have this ESL partnership I think you can take more of a risk and pick more innovative concepts as well.
I already dread next month cause it kinda forces even more standard maps. Hopefully in the future you pick differently or have some cool restrictions that lead to more uncommon maps.
edit: I would personally have a restriction like have some features that are not common in the tournament/ladder maps but that's probably too woolly of a restriction so we would have lots of discussions about who did it right and so on
edit2: I think we had a discussion about this earlier but I guess it's right to assume that the majority of spectators would love to see a map with new features instead of the same standard concepts all the time, right?
I'm with a176 and Ragoo, why do you keep picking the maps that look the most like Blizzard's maps ? If I want to play on bland maps I can play ladder games, I'm pretty sure they invented the concept. And now next Motm will be about reproducing Blizzard's style, good luck with the originality...
If you want to promote a map with a refined layout, it's fine for me but then just remove the former map it was based on. In the end it just takes the room of innovation and takes away the fun for mappers to try new stuff. But do you really want new maps...
On September 13 2011 12:34 a176 wrote: See personal comment, + Show Spoiler +
I respectfully chose not to voice a comment after you guys selected Artifice last time, but with the consideration of Overgrown, MOTM pretty much starting to look like a joke to me. While Funcmode already had a pretty generic 4p map in the overall map pool, seeing another highly similar, plain, and uninspiring map like Artifice make the overall winner over many of the other maps, is quite mind boggling.
If you guys are just going to pick these kinds of maps ... I don't even know what the point of this "organization" / "competition" is anymore, aside from being a TPW party in a hat.
hahaha, this.^
On September 13 2011 11:23 FlopTurnReaver wrote: A few things about the choices:
I think I like innovative mapfeatures and original layouts more than most people here. Although when it's about a tournament with prize money played by progamers, you have to decide between innovative and balanced/well executed maps. Don't think we didn't discuss any of the from you guys mentioned maps. To be honest, it really sucks if you have to reject a really cool concept because the execution wasn't as thought out as it could've.
If you have any questions about results, your map etc. even after the write ups, feel free to contact any of the judges.
What I hear: "progamers are too dumb and/or too lazy to have to think about real innovative features -- after all, they're not Koreans, amiright?" I thought part of the point was to let the progamers show us what could be done with the maps and prove out whether new things were imbalanced or not.
Out of the finalists, I think Bardiche is the winner.
On September 13 2011 20:17 chuky500 wrote:If I want to play on bland maps I can play ladder games, I'm pretty sure they invented the concept. And now next Motm will be about reproducing Blizzard's style, good luck with the originality...
blizzard like styled maps are not the same like blizzard's ladder maps...
On September 13 2011 21:02 Sea_Food wrote: Sry if this was asked before, but can we customize color, size and propotions on the normal doodads on MOTM #10?
Yeah I already asked and got no answer. I also asked about changing water and lighting. Can someone please clarify?
It's ok Ragoo, i'll just make a rotational 4p 16bases map ezpz for next month :p
Oh btw, Abyssal Caverns use a custom tileset with using a marsara texture in the monlyth tileset. Will we be able to use one texture from another tileset?
I half expected TPW Ohana to make it to the finalists simply because it was the only beach map that had a custom tileset. I expect too much sometimes...
One of the winners, took a blizzard map, retextured and VOILA WINNER...
so lame... 2 2 base mapswhere taking your 3rd is going to be a joke. And a lesser version of shakuras...tho I admit the textures of it might be better looking.
so should we just start copying layouts and repainting them?
MotM 10 I am doing Tal Darim, but going to delete the rocks on the 3rd, and ill add some doo-dads. shoe in for winning it.
Not this shit again. Sometimes we may disagree. Sometimes we may rightfully disagree, but take a chill pill and take a moment to appreciate the amount of work these guys do for you, for the community, for free.
It is fine you question the judges. I do so myself, I absolutely disagree this month. But really, grow the fuck up. How fucking hard is it to communicate your disagreement without sounding like a kid with his candy taken away from him?
Not this shit again. Sometimes we may disagree. Sometimes we may rightfully disagree, but take a chill pill and take a moment to appreciate the amount of work these guys do for you, for the community, for free.
It is fine you question the judges. I do so myself, I absolutely disagree this month. But really, grow the fuck up. How fucking hard is it to communicate your disagreement without sounding like a kid with his candy taken away from him?
Agreed!
And that´s spoken by the guy who made the most awesome map I´ve seen in a while. I was not only expecting Dark Matter in top 5, I was actually expecting it to win!
Please keep in mind that the judges spent a lot of time discussing each maps pros & cons, and that they have plenty of disagreements & heated arguments during the process. The final top 5 are a compromise, so please respect that.
After several months of doing non-standard maps, I went for a solid, balanced layout. My working title was "a widened Xel Naga Caverns" with a non-linear expansion pattern. Big thanks to the TPW team for giving feedback and suggestions. As always, I had master players run testgames, which are very difficult to arrange but definitely worthwile.
After several months of doing non-standard maps, I went for a solid, balanced layout. My working title was "a widened Xel Naga Caverns" with a non-linear expansion pattern. Big thanks to the TPW team for giving feedback and suggestions. As always, I had master players run testgames, which are very difficult to arrange but definitely worthwile.
lol, I always thought about this map as a different Xel'Naga Caverns. Cool to hear that that was your goal
When playing this map I thought that some parts of the texturing are a bit sloppy tho, I think you could do better (since you are actually one of the best when it comes to aesthetics).
After several months of doing non-standard maps, I went for a solid, balanced layout. My working title was "a widened Xel Naga Caverns" with a non-linear expansion pattern. Big thanks to the TPW team for giving feedback and suggestions. As always, I had master players run testgames, which are very difficult to arrange but definitely worthwile.
lol, I always thought about this map as a different Xel'Naga Caverns. Cool to hear that that was your goal
When playing this map I thought that some parts of the texturing are a bit sloppy tho, I think you could do better (since you are actually one of the best when it comes to aesthetics).
True. I was adjusting & fine tuning the layout up to the point where I didn´t have enough time to polish the aestethics. I will mike it all shiny before tournament starts
I think people are more so upset because there is no reason Dark Matter shouldn't be in the top 5. Only thing I could see making it not in the top 5 would be if there was one little thing that was overlooked that made it completely imbalanced, but even if that was the case you could just have the author do a little fix on it before it's published online.
I honestly have a feeling if the in-base natural was the main and the main was made the natural the map would have easily gotten top 5, but because he tries something out by switching it up it's now considered too "imbalanced". Heck, I didnt even submit a map and I never talk with Archivl3 at all, I just think his map was well thought out and does a whole new twist on things. Instead we get maps that we've seen every other month before just because they are "standard".
I do like all the winning maps though, minus emerald jungle (sorry Lefix, I love you, I love most of your maps, I just dislike this one haha <3) it's just that it does kind of suck when there are certain maps that get tons of feedback, that flow well, that are balanced, yet other standard maps beat them out just because they are standard.
We can't do anything the judging was already did and I think the judge wouldn't change their mind, but I agree to a lot of people about some map and that Dark Matter could have easily made top 5, but it seems some judge saw imbalance, so I will see what they have to say about the maps and why they took each maps.
I'm sure the judges has a lot of pressure, but judging seems very hard cause human are all biased.
I was going to defend the choice against Dark Matter but figured that that wouldn't accomplish anything. Instead I'll say that the judges have their reasons for choosing what they did. I don't agree with all their choices but I'll believe that they have their reasons and just accept their choices, even if I don't agree with all of them.
A lot of very "standard" maps seem to be making it in. That makes me scared because my maps are everything but standard. I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, standard maps are what are known to work well and create balanced matches, just there are so many of them.
On September 14 2011 10:15 Antares777 wrote: A lot of very "standard" maps seem to be making it in. That makes me scared because my maps are everything but standard. I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, standard maps are what are known to work well and create balanced matches, just there are so many of them.
Guess we need to work harder then. If Standard maps are running rampant, we'll just need to work on finding a new, creative solution. I'm game. New topics for MotM would be a good start. Or, if the judges are up to it, perhaps a Map of the Fortnight, to allow for more map madness each month.
Ok after seeing so many comments about this issue and also receiving a PM concerning this I decided trying to clarify a bit more detailed. As I already stated in here earlier I'm a big fan of innovative mapconcepts and layouts myself. I'd like to see some crazy and new things in the top5 as much as you do. Now unfortunatly it's not as easy as you may think. You're saying that we should try out new things that aren't tested. That's a good thought. However the problem with this is that we are trying to get some maps into the pools of big, serious tournaments and guess what, they're not big fans of unproven concepts and features.
This is kinda the vicious circle we're fighting agains since the beginning. No professional testing means no clarification. No clarification means no interest from big organisations. No interest from big organisations means no professional testing. Of course we can test maps ourself but there's not a single GM player in our rows or to our order so in the end we can never be sure how it'll play out in professional matches, which is obviously really bad. Hence the easiest thing to make tournaments accept our winning maps is to not try any wild experiments.
It's no coincidence that the majority of the more experienced mapmakers (e.g. the TPW guys) usually go for rather generic mapconcepts. Those are proven to work, every pro knows how to play it and if there are still imbalances they can be ruled out fairly easily. People like this don't try to redefine maps, they're just looking for ways to take a standart layout and put a little bit of innovation into it, Emerald Jungle is a good example for this imo. So there's the reason it's a top 5 map. It has a balaced proven layout, it has a certain amound of innovation and it looks fantastic.
I'd like to make a comparison here. Put the topic of maps away for a minute. Let's think about strategies in SC2. People are sometimes coming up with totally wild, new strategies. Let's take Destinys Infestor play for instance. It's an incredibly good strategy. However from the first idea to the end product it had to go a long way. It had to be refined many times, made around a lot of problems that it may have had in the beginning. In the beginning it probably was close to a strategy that already existed but was a bit more extreme. Then after some time it became more and more extreme in the direction it is now.
Now take the same analogy for maps. If you have a completely new idea for a layout or just mapfeature and jump right to it, it's most certainly not gonna be well executed. It needs some time to develop and find out if there are any issues in professional play at all so it can be refined into the balanced awesome thing it's supposed to be. That is what's going on right now in the mapmaking community. People are trying to take something that's already tested well enough and push it towards new ideas. What I'm trying to say with this is that too big steps can hurt the process sometimes.
Now back to this months competition and reasoning behind some of the decicions. Let's say a map features some nice innovation that we actually see as well executed. It's just not enough. The map has to meet some general expectations. It may sound a bit shallow, but if a map has a clean and interesting aesthetical look it already gained some extra points. An other problem that many submitted maps have each month is space management. It's sometimes smaller things that add to the big picture.
Something that struck me when reading the comments concerned the map ESV Derelict. The map has imo a very original layout. I've never seen terrain placement quite like it so I'd consider the map rather innovative. However I've read multiple comments about how weird the map is and how stupid it will play out. So everyone is screaming for something like it but as soon as it's in the top5 it gets bashed by the same people. I don't really understand what you are asking for.
I'd also like to adress all those comments about LoS_Dark Matter, although I usually don't like to do this in public. So, many people have said that they want to see innovation and they don't see how this map didn't make it into the top5. So first of all I'd like to ask you: What exactly do you consider the big innovation on this map? What's different than on any other 4 player rotational symmetry map? Ok so we have the thing with the mainbase and natural expansion switched. Then we have the high ground on the opposite of the natural. Plus some LoS blocker at the main choke.
I gotta be honest with you, even though this is something we don't see on every map, it's not the reinvention of the wheel. I'd even say that it's exactly what I described above. It's a standard concept but pushed a bit towards innovation. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that this fact makes it bad in any way. Concerning originality it puts it on the same level as some of the top5 maps of this month, above of some, below some others. The reason why it didn't get picked was that there are just a lot of smaller issues.
The main is tiny if you consider that you need to leave space at the bottom of the 2 ramps. The intention here probably was that players can place their buildings at the natural. However as far as I know, you usually like your buildings as near to your main building as possible. Very small issue.
The high grounds opposite to the natural don't really have a good purpose. There's no expansion so all you can use it for is for abuse. - Defensive: Have 2 high grounds right next to the main choke to place your defences. Who is ever gonna attack into your 2 base turtle style? It's nearly impossible - Offensive: It's the perfect place for warp ins/Nydus/drops. It'd pretty much work the same as the high ground behind the natural of Scrap station, only that you'd be right in the main.
The LoSB at the main choke are a nice idea but it's pretty much impossible to predict how they would play out in a professional game. There's much potential for abuse here.
There's a positional imbalance with the expanding direction. A player who spawns counterclockwise to his opponent can only expand counter clockwise, since otherwise he'd expand right under the high ground of his opponent.
No matter which 3rd base you decide for, there's gonna be 2!! pathable cliffs next to it, ready to be abused.
The middle bases are far too vulnurable, not only because of the issue mentioned above. They are on low ground right next to the middle highground, equipped with a Xel'Naga Watchtower, which makes tank pushes, especially against Zerg, unbelievabely strong. If the tank push is even supported by a Planetary Fortress at the 3rd nearby, it's almost impossible for a Zerg to survive.
You could say that the idea behind the map was very good, however the execution was lacking some basic balance issues. And with that we come to the probably most common problem of innovative maps: Even if you implement cool original stuff, you can never forget about the most basic things only because it's a new style of map.
No but seriously, don't be lazy, read the whole thing, it took me way longer to write this than it will you to read.
I hope I was able to clarify a couple things and regain some faith in the MotM Organisation. We will still be looking for some innovative but also balanced maps in the future and hope you're not discouraged to work on new concepts in the future. It's not easy for us to please the mapmaking community, professional gamers and tournament organizers at the same time but we're trying our best to find a good compromise.
If I left something out you feel I should've mentioned or you would like to have some better insight into it, don't be afraid to ask about it. Our goal is to work together with the community as close as possible because you are what keeps us going.
I fully agree that balance is always the first priority when it comes to maps.
To ensure that a somewhat gimmicky design that Dark Matter have is balanced it tested a lot. Probally more then all other maps I ever made combined. Everything you mentioned as possible imba has proven to not be imba. You mention the highground at the 3rd which I intentionaly left pathable because it's a cool feature which if done right is perfectly fine. Have a look:
The third is not siegeable and the siege tank is in any position on the highground within roach range. It is perfectly possible to deal with.
I am aware that terran mech is extremely strong on this map but is at the same time counterable by the mobility of the zerg and have a look at how awesomely strong mutas are on this map. All the cliffs and the open space are a heaven for the mutas.
There are a lot of strong strategies on this map but they are evenly counterable by strong play of all races.
You mention the second highground at the main having no purpose. It is intentional to be a vulnerable spot to horrassment. Maps with an inbase nat tend to favor turtleing so I compensated by horrassment a very good option. I think that slowly wearing down your oponent can lead to more interesting games then going for a simple bust and while ppl have been saying that it is hard to deal with it is perfectly counterable and not imbalanced.
On September 14 2011 12:51 FlopTurnReaver wrote: You're saying that we should try out new things that aren't tested. That's a good thought. However the problem with this is that we are trying to get some maps into the pools of big, serious tournaments and guess what, they're not big fans of unproven concepts and features.
I thought that was the whole point of MoTM? To create new and exciting maps that will get played by GM level players. Then you are able to see how the map plays out. Bardiche, Derelict & Tenarsis are maps that are fairly new styles yet are balanced. I'm sure with enough play testing they could be great maps even though they all have a fairly new style to them. The major problem comes into play with Emerald Jungle & Overgrown. We have Standard 4player map & Shakuras Clone. We already know these styles of maps work and there is nothing really new about them at all. How are MoTM mappers suppose to learn how to try new things when it gets shut down because we haven't seen it before.
On September 14 2011 12:51 FlopTurnReaver wrote: The main is tiny if you consider that you need to leave space at the bottom of the 2 ramps. The intention here probably was that players can place their buildings at the natural. However as far as I know, you usually like your buildings as near to your main building as possible. Very small issue.
...
...
A lot of these seem very nitpicky and it's weird because if you look at maps in the top5 I could really go down the list and mark multiple maps off that have abusive terrain, pathable cliffs and bases that are far too vulnurable. Derelict for example will be hard to take a 3rd. The blue 3rd has high ground right next to it, making it super hard to defend. Taking the gold though makes it super choky and a tank push through there will make it almost impossible to hold. Overgrown is Shakuras 2.0 but completely zerg favored. Nats are more open, 3rds are more open, more attack paths, more air space.
At one point you say it'll be too hard to attack because a player turtling on 2 base will be too tough to crack, then you go about saying each expansion has too many cliffs to harass with. What? The whole 2 base turtle thing doesn't make any sense because any player on any map can sit on 2 base and turtle with ease.
Your statement about LoSB at the main choke kind of makes me upset. You say it's a nice idea but impossible to predict how it would play out. Soooo, why don't we see how it will play out in MoTM and if it ends up being amazing maybe it'll be a feature we'll see in more maps. Before TDA came out if the main wasn't on a higher ground then your natural we probably still wouldn't see that feature on maps. Yet LSPrime took a chance, kept the main & nat on the same cliff level and look how amazing that map turned out.
It's not just about Dark Matter either. Look at Taonas. The map is great, yet I feel the only reason it didn't get chosen was because of the mass usage of LoSBs. So now, everything about that map is nice, main/nat/3rd/4th are great, yet it's close enough to just 1 or 2 base if you want. The aesthetics are amazing as well, yet (i'm assuming here) because the tons of tons of LoSB it got voted as "imbalanced" and therefore we won't see any games on it. (Now, I know it's ESV, so there will probably be games on regardless, but yeah...) It's a new idea on a great map that because you guys think the professional programers won't like to play on it, or won't know hot o play on it, you don't let this unique map finish in the top.
On September 14 2011 12:51 FlopTurnReaver wrote: It's no coincidence that the majority of the more experienced mapmakers (e.g. the TPW guys) usually go for rather generic mapconcepts. Those are proven to work, every pro knows how to play it and if there are still imbalances they can be ruled out fairly easily. People like this don't try to redefine maps, they're just looking for ways to take a standart layout and put a little bit of innovation into it, Emerald Jungle is a good example for this imo. So there's the reason it's a top 5 map. It has a balaced proven layout, it has a certain amound of innovation and it looks fantastic.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather watch professional players play on innovated maps and see how they react to certain unique features about the maps then just watching them play Standard 4 player map version 37 and Shakuras 2.0.
I should say I have nothing against MoTM and I know it takes a lot of time and effort to go thru all the maps and judge them. I usually hang out on Skype with you all (although I haven't been very active the past week or two). It's just really irriating to me when there are all these unique, good looking maps, Damage Inc, Dark Matter & Taonis, that won't get a chance to be played because Standard 4 player map with layout that has worked for over a year now has 2 new paths added in steals the spotlight. And come on, it's a jungle map too, shouldn't that automatically have it's originally score tanked to 0?
I think that was an excellent post, FTR, thank for responding and putting so much effort and time into this. I think this is a great dialogue. I encourage fellow mappers to keep an air of respect and consideration; we've all worked hard and are passionate about this, and I love this group for it.
Of the current topic, I don't know DarkMatter enough to argue either way, so I'm not advocating for or against. It occurs to me, though, that a hole might have slipped into the evaluation process. To illustrate: party X creating maps and party Y is judging it. Party Y has gained their experience and eye for measuring maps based on the current methodologies. If party X is creating relatively standard maps with standard dynamics, the system works well: party Y is an expert in such things and therefore serves well as a judge.
But, if party X is creating new dynamics that are a two steps away from the standard, dynamics that are unique (I.E. not done before), party Y is not an expert at these specific dynamics. Y still has all the knowledge and skill they learned for standard maps, and can probably pick up and understand new dynamics quite well. But, party Y cannot eyeball it. They cannot know how the unfamiliar dynamics work without seeing it in action.
In simplified terms: if I am judging a map and the map maker is forging new territory, I don't know that territory. I have to go figure it out before I can judge it.
Based on this, it may be something the MotM team needs to consider. If we're doing stuff never before seen, how can you understand it without seeing it in action?
If Archvil3 has spent 50+ hours testing the map's new dynamic (and assuming the other issues aren't present) and has already identified and tested most/all the concerns with the map, and it is rejected because the judges don't understand it and have not requested replays or a write up on it... do you see what I'm getting at here? Some things are universal; knowledge of those things do lend the MotM team to judge innovative maps. But how can anyone judge something they do not understand?
With innovative maps, it is inevitable that there will be things that judges do not understand.
This is a good thing, but it presents some challenges. Judges cannot spend time investigating every dynamic. That is a silly and impossible expectation. So it's a matter of thinning the herd, I imagine. Some maps can be reject on their extremely poor aesthetics, others because of other glaring basic flaws. But what about those maps that show a lot of love and score well almost everywhere else?
One option is that a dialog is opened up between the mapper and one of the MotM, or the judges highlight their concerns before the judging so the mappers can respond with their findings from testing. Again, these are only for maps that would be viable in every other way, and really showcase the love and commitment of the mapper. We don't want you burning effort in every direction, that helps no one.
Maybe some of these ideas can help. Ultimately, the goal of this post is to help MotM be more awesome, provoking thought, and addressing concerns. Please view it in that light. Thanks for your ear, MotM guys. <3s
@SidianTheBard and @FoxyMayhem Excellent posts, you say a lot of things I would have said but better
I hope nobody is misunderstanding my criticism: I 100% respect all the effort of the judges to test these maps and judge them fairly for their balance, aesthetics etc This is hard unpaid work and without these guys the mapmaking community would be a lot weaker and more meaningless!
I also have tons of respect for the mapmakers of these "standard" maps. I have been doing some mapmaking myself and know how tiring it can be at times, but these guys probably work at least twice as hard to make the most balanced and best looking maps they can, and even if I consider the result boring I know how much work and passion went into it and I'm happy for every mapmaker who makes top5!
@FlopTurnReaver I appreciate that you take your time to clarify some things. This post doesn't really give me hope tho. Imo you should really see MotM as more of a testing environment, especially now that you have the ESL partnership. I mean now you are really a notable organization and with Rotti and MrBitter casting hopefully a NA+EU tournament and the showmatches they set up, I think you get even better feedback than before. I'm not saying your top5 should consist of crazy maps only, I think 2-3 maps that are just totally standard is fine (I predicted or wished Overgrown, Concrete Dreams and Tenarsis would make top5). But you are playing it too safe imo and that's why I'm losing interest in this organization. Cause when I think of new exciting maps I think of GSL and especially ESV Weeklies, not MotM anymore... (which is even somewhat ironic I think).
Consider this: If an innovative map like Taonas or Dark Matter has some imbalances like the ones you pointed out it can be tested, discussed and fixed in the next version of the map. If a standard map is balanced but too boring and common there is no next version that fixes that. Maps like Terminus, Testbug, Bel'Shir, Crevasse and Tal'Darim all were new and innovative when they came out and they all needed to be fixed cause of some smaller imbalances.
I don't think this it's a big problem if a well thought out concept can get top5 despite some small imbalances and afterwards is fixed.
When you started you had categories for balance and aesthetics, but also for originality and fun and I thought that was the correct way to judge a map
MotM now receive so many good maps it's frustrating to only have a top5, this month there were at least 12 maps that could've been picked so you could have a totaly different top5 and nothing to complain about it. Maybe it's time for MotM to change the format. Most tournaments have over 10 maps in their pool, ofc they use standards and well known maps so it's easy for players, so maybe MotM could increase the pool to 8 with the possibility for players to veto 1 map, or have a top5 used for the tournament and 2 or 3 more used only for the finals. Also please bring back the special awards, and show those maps too in special showmatches.
Some of you make it sound as if 'standard' maps are destined to produce boring games. But i think that couldn't be further from the truth. When you complain about the lack of testing on the 'innovative' maps, i wonder who actually took the time to Test the 'standard' ones to be able to label them as boring maps. I personally have attempted many experimental maps in my early days of mapmaking. But i came to the conclusion that making something different doesn't automatically make it better. Most of the times that's simply not the case. There is a reason why the standard is the way it is and there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to it. And in fact i find it very challenging to come up with yet another original layout without breaking any of the basic rules and keeping flaws to a minimum.
And please don't misunderstand my post. I don't oppose innovation at all, in fact i secretly want new ideas to succeed and be accepted by the community and open up new possibilities for us mapmakers. But it is a slow process.
Also, i think the idea to include optional replays of testgames should be encouraged
I understand it takes time to judge maps, but it does take more time to make a map, texture and balance it. You say a standard map takes more time to balance than a creative one but it's just wrong, because standard is easier to balance. We don't throw something in the map editor then send it to you expecting to make it to the Motm tournament and see how it plays.
As a mapper I feel cheated because the contest said :
We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!
and thanks to FlopTurnReaver's post I see it's not the case and it's actually the contrary. Motm want to replace standard maps in tournaments with other standard maps with the same gameplay.
We should organize our own tournament with original maps because of the divergence of point of view with the organisation. Or just sit-and-goes with very few players. I ran 3 last year with custom melee maps ands they were fun.
Bottom line : Motm will probably never take the risks they should.
edit: nobody complains about maps used in tournament being unbalanced, so why does Motm focus about the balance of existing maps.
Admitting that you will not select innovative maps is pretty damning. You pretty much loss a lot of your reputation for allowing two self-proclaimed map clones to make as finalists; even moreso that they are both TPW maps. But I take it Overgrown and Tenarsis falls under 'playing it safe' and opting for the 'tried and true'. Atleast they look pretty to you.
For whichever tournament will be using your map pool, I am atleast glad we still have the likes of GSL, MLG, etc, who are not afraid to try new and varied maps.
On September 14 2011 20:39 chuky500 wrote: I understand it takes time to judge maps, but it does take more time to make a map, texture and balance it. You say a standard map takes more time to balance than a creative one but it's just wrong, because standard is easier to balance. We don't throw something in the map editor then send it to you expecting to make it to the Motm tournament and see how it plays.
As a mapper I feel cheated because the contest said :
We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!
and thanks to FlopTurnReaver's post I see it's not the case and it's actually the contrary. Motm want to replace standard maps in tournaments with other standard maps with the same gameplay.
1. We should organize our own tournament with original maps because of the divergence of point of view with the organisation. Or just sit-and-goes with very few players. I ran 3 last year with custom melee maps ands they were fun.
2. Bottom line : Motm will probably never take the risks they should.
edit: nobody complains about maps used in tournament being unbalanced, so why does Motm focus about the balance of existing maps.
I'm not sure what you want... do you want a few games on some custom maps? Or do you want to create longlasting partnerships with important tournament organizations to establish a pipeline for map creation --> tournament usage.
1. Believe me, in no way am I trying to disparage you, but... how many real pros played in your tournaments? Were they casted by an MLG caster and viewed thousands of times? I don't need to ask if it was fun, you said so. And playing the community's maps is fun, and it'd be easy to spend much more time just doing that. But that doesn't mean any of the millions of starcraft fan will ever get anything out of it.
2. The timing of this is just silly. It is at this point exactly that we can start to say... all the adherence to being "acceptable" for use by pros is paying off in the form of wider community recognition and significant relationships with tournaments. Exactly because of this--which is the knot of all the criticism at the moment--MotM is in a position to make their own clout. Not now, not next month, but maybe next year..? MotM could be a regular contributor to tournament map pools, perhaps even the blizzard ladder. Do you realize how awesome it is that that means anyone could make a new map any given future month and it would show up in pro matches that are viewed by millions of people? More to the point, once MotM is viewed as an inculcated body of authority, and once the game is a bit older, the room for including truly innovative maps will only increase. Complaining that we still don't see that many "new" maps and probably never will is like saying "my fast expansion hasn't started paying off yet, it probably never will".
chuky, I chose to rebut your post because it was a convenient way to structure what I wanted to say, it's not out of anything personal. I completely empathize with the first bit you said quoting the encouragement of creativity. You have to realize that that can never come at the cost of good design, balance, and polish. Especially not during this phase in the development of mapmaking work from a corner of the forum for hobbyists into an engine of esports.
I think one thing that people are misunderstanding is what the goal of MotM really is.
Goal #1: Is it to get user made maps into high level tournaments in the future? Goal #2: Is it to allow people to get high level testing on new map concepts? (btw i have no idea what the actual goal is myself... but these seem somewhat likely)
I feel like to accomplish the first goal, revamped standard maps are the way to go because high level players would be more accepting and comfortable playing on them. Which in turn makes them more attractive to tournaments. I think that after this is accomplished the second goal will be much easier because MotM would have more credibility. They could say "look here we've made X maps which are used in Y tournaments. trust us that this innovative map will work out." I think that in order for MotM to grow and gain a wider audience goal #1 should be completed first, followed by goal #2. Also it should be taken into account that this game is still only one year old with two more expansions to come. So what is innovative now could become imbalanced in the future. But what is standard/blizz map remake is less likely to become out-dated.
I can almost guarantee you if you have a prize pool, you can get programers to play whatever map you want. TBH, if MoTM took away their prize pool would we ever see DDE again? What about Ddoro? Chances are slim because why spend your time learning/playing on new maps without a chance to win anything.
So everybody who says "well, we need standard maps so programmers will want to play on them" just makes me laugh. Most of these players won't even play the map before they play it in the tournament, hence why you get so many of them that say "oh I didnt know that was there, oh this map is neat look at this, etc etc etc" during their matchup. I bet I could take a shit on a map, make it completely imbalanced & 1 sided and as long as I say the winner gets $100 bucks I will get professional GM players that will play it.
MoTM SHOULD be the testing grounds. It SHOULD be where we take a giant leap instead of small baby steps. We SHOULD be throwing out super unique maps with never seen before features. This will allow us to know what works and what doesn't. That's why it's crazy that Taonis didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Dark Matter didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Damage INC didn't get it.
On September 15 2011 00:32 SidianTheBard wrote: I can almost guarantee you if you have a prize pool, you can get programers to play whatever map you want. TBH, if MoTM took away their prize pool would we ever see DDE again? What about Ddoro? Chances are slim because why spend your time learning/playing on new maps without a chance to win anything.
So everybody who says "well, we need standard maps so programmers will want to play on them" just makes me laugh. Most of these players won't even play the map before they play it in the tournament, hence why you get so many of them that say "oh I didnt know that was there, oh this map is neat look at this, etc etc etc" during their matchup. I bet I could take a shit on a map, make it completely imbalanced & 1 sided and as long as I say the winner gets $100 bucks I will get professional GM players that will play it.
MoTM SHOULD be the testing grounds. It SHOULD be where we take a giant leap instead of small baby steps. We SHOULD be throwing out super unique maps with never seen before features. This will allow us to know what works and what doesn't. That's why it's crazy that Taonis didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Dark Matter didn't get it, that's why it's crazy Damage INC didn't get it.
Players will play any map in a map pool of a turny, but that dosnt mean turnament organaizer would want to hear complaints from players that they were forced to play a map they thnk is bad.
You seem to think a new map concept could kill Motm if the layout wasn't a standard one, but Stacraft 2 has a very refined and balanced gameplay that allows a lot of freedom in map layouts.
For example if I made a 2 player map with just the close positions of Taldarim Altar or Delta Quadrant, it would look imbalanced because one player would have his natural close to his opponent's main. But it is actually what happens 66% of the time on 4 player rotational symmetry maps and it's not that imbalanced.
Another example : Dark Matter seems to have a tiny main, and that's a feature my map Back to Back also has so I can relate. The goal is to encourage players to spread their buildings on the natural expansion because it's safer to build in the natural. So over time, your natural becomes your main. This really adds depth to the game because a player can force the other one to delay his tech until he's taken his natural, because it's safer. Also because of the fact you're forced to spread your buildings, players don't automatically lose the game when they lose an expansion because they still have many buildings left. Again this only makes games more interresting. Don't believe newer concepts haven't been tested thoroughly and that they are competing in the Motm just to hear feedback. Newer concepts take a lot more time to refine than default layouts.
The problem with Motm isn't the plan for the future, everyone agrees tournaments need more variety with their maps. The problem is the jury that picks the Motm winners is made of "solid mappers" (as opposed to "innovative mappers") and thus they tend to pick maps they can relate to, it's that simple. If you change the jury and put "innovative mappers" that can think outside the box and have perspective on the game then you'll have more variety in the maps. After all that's what tournaments look for.
If a protoss player wins because the maps were protoss favored, players are going to see it as a sham. It's not about their skill anymore, and the odds are unfairly stacked against/for them. Credibility, clout, and respect are at stake, especially in these early stages.
The "foot in the door" method (wherein MotM gains notoriety and clout by delivering extremely refined maps, and then introducing more innovative ones) is a good one, but I think its like eating peas with a knife: you can do it, it works, but it really doesn't take advantage of the tools at your disposal.
I do not think that concepts should be proven in MotM. They should be proven in testing (and, perhaps after they've proven solid there, entered in a smaller sub-tournament that is designed just for the more extreme maps). These behave as gates, filtering out bad maps or mapping errors and allowing mappers to bring their balance polish even further. This requires that the MotM team take a look at the results of testing, but I believe can address many of the concerns outlined by FTR.
So, MotM team, how does something like this sound: "Wacky Worlds Tournament (WWT) Prize Pool: $20 Time Period: Monthly Map pool size: 3-5 Player Size: 8-16 Format: Bo3, Bo5"
I have not run a tournament before, is this viable?
I feel the tournament is a longer-term thing, and thorough testing and dialogues with the MotM team can efficiently take its place right now. I've tested Nightmare Hollow for more than 50 hours, and by the end of today I will have observerd several dozen games with Grandmasters. It's taken months, but I am really committed to making a knock-out map. Hopefully my studying this map will be taken into consideration at some point, should maps be allowed back in at any point.
Which, considering the main problem with the innovative maps is the need for refinement, I believe they should be permitted again at some point, giving us the opportunity to refine.
On September 15 2011 01:01 NASL tweeted: We're switching things up! Check out the changes we have made to our open tournament structure this season! http://t.co/M3n7Pp0
Open & Semi Open Featuring New Maps
As part of our effort to bring in new maps and involve the map-making community, the two open tournaments, as well as the Semi Open Tournament, will be played on brand new maps, thanks to our partner The Planetary Workshop! 9 new maps will be added for the tournaments. We will then take pro-gamer and community feedback and select the best 3-4 maps ,and add them to the NASL Season 3 rotation.
Maps mentioned so far: TPW Concrete Dreams TPW Lunar Station TPW Ohana TPW Emerald Jungle
Congrats guys, and respect to NASL for doing this, nice way to make up for some of the mistakes from season 1! Gotta say I'm getting excited for this, how about you?
I think MotM should add a strict goal, like... those who made the top 5 in the previous MotM cannot participate in the next one to allow others to have a better chance (but may resume in the following motm). I think this would make a lot of people happy.
So let's say all five finalists were TPW guys in MotM A. In MotM B, those 5 finalists from A cannot participate or submit, which allows others to get a chance to shine, but they can come back in MotM C. That may sound a bit harsh and I know us TPW guys are always anxious to submit new maps, but I really think that the more map-team maps make the top 5, the more steamed up people will get.
Holy shit, TPW partnership with NASL is sick news. Now we have TPW+NASL, ESV and Korean Mapmakers+GOM and ESL+MotM. What will MLG do?
I don't like the idea that top5 can't participate. I also don't like the idea that judges have to change or another tournament is set up or whatever. I think only the mentality needs to change a bit, the structure, judges and mapmakers are not the problem, they are the reason we got this far.
edit: Hopefully someone is making a bigass hype thread about the TPW+NASL news!?!^^
On September 15 2011 02:15 WniO wrote: this is great news for our community but why did they add maps that have been BARELY tested and just came out?
NASL described them as a "testing ground" and then with the help of their high-level players, they will choose the best 3-4 TPW maps and insert them into season 3 for NASL.
On September 15 2011 01:50 IronManSC wrote: So let's say all five finalists were TPW guys in MotM A. In MotM B, those 5 finalists from A cannot participate or submit, which allows others to get a chance to shine, but they can come back in MotM C. That may sound a bit harsh and I know us TPW guys are always anxious to submit new maps, but I really think that the more map-team maps make the top 5, the more steamed up people will get.
Its not really an issue with TPW in and of itself, but more to do with these 5 individual judges anxious to upvote TPW maps, and trying to correlate "original and innovative" with "shakuras retexture"
I think that would be sort of counterproductive. Motm wants the best maps available, Why would they exclude mapmakers for being too good? I also don't think the map pool needs to be increased unless the size of the tournament is increased As well.
As for the innovative maps, let me tell you that you will Be able to See damage Inc in the nasl tournaments, too
On September 15 2011 02:15 WniO wrote: this is great news for our community but why did they add maps that have been BARELY tested and just came out?
that's because nasl was mostly interested in introducing new maps instead of using older existing Maps. But there are also going to Be some older ones included
On September 15 2011 01:50 IronManSC wrote: I think MotM should add a strict goal, like... those who made the top 5 in the previous MotM cannot participate in the next one to allow others to have a better chance (but may resume in the following motm). I think this would make a lot of people happy.
So let's say all five finalists were TPW guys in MotM A. In MotM B, those 5 finalists from A cannot participate or submit, which allows others to get a chance to shine, but they can come back in MotM C. That may sound a bit harsh and I know us TPW guys are always anxious to submit new maps, but I really think that the more map-team maps make the top 5, the more steamed up people will get.
It was, thanks for putting it out there. I'd rather people offer solutions than hold them back to avoid criticism. Sometimes what seems as a poor idea can be built upon to offer a great solution.
On September 15 2011 04:32 FoxyMayhem wrote: It was, thanks for putting it out there. I'd rather people offer solutions than hold them back to avoid criticism. Sometimes what seems as a poor idea can be built upon to offer a great solution.
Perhaps, like only the winner can't enter next month?
Less punishing all around, but gives the other top 5'ers, and some others, a better chance of winning next time, and forces the winner to take their sweet time on their next map. Win/Win.
On September 15 2011 04:32 FoxyMayhem wrote: It was, thanks for putting it out there. I'd rather people offer solutions than hold them back to avoid criticism. Sometimes what seems as a poor idea can be built upon to offer a great solution.
Perhaps, like only the winner can't enter next month?
Less punishing all around, but gives the other top 5'ers, and some others, a better chance of winning next time, and forces the winner to take their sweet time on their next map. Win/Win.
Isn't the winner invited to be a judge for the next month? thereby taking them out of the competition.
On September 15 2011 01:47 FoxyMayhem wrote:I've tested Nightmare Hollow for more than 50 hours, and by the end of today I will have observerd several dozen games with Grandmasters. It's taken months, but I am really committed to making a knock-out map. Hopefully my studying this map will be taken into consideration at some point, should maps be allowed back in at any point.
Which, considering the main problem with the innovative maps is the need for refinement, I believe they should be permitted again at some point, giving us the opportunity to refine.
That is really impressive, and I agree that it should lead to something more than one shot at MotM. Along with a structure that allows resubmission or other possible improvements to recognize work like this, allow me to illustrate a hypothetical situation:
Imagine MotM is a "household name" in the sc2 world in several months and all segments of the community actively look to it each month for rejuvenating ideas and well-executed maps. Major tournaments will watch for potential new maps as a matter of course, and players will discuss maps in threads whose length and cacophony of imba! cries rivals patch notes threads. In this environment, if you submit a map that goes as Nightmare Hollow went--with a map thread detailing all kinds of testing, refinement, consideration and reconsideration, etc.--but it doesn't get picked as a finalist... it may get picked up by a tournament organizer who sees it anyway and likes it! This is what exposure will create. Why do we see Testbug repeatedly at MLG events? It was never the winner of a map tournament. It probably had minimal pro-level testing when the first version was released and some of the iccup maps were being used in the koths and whatnot. Anyway I don't know the answer but the point is that maps get picked up because of existing relationships built up over time, not necessarily because of the merit of a map, or the work that was put into it. Of course these things should count but it's hard to create a system that works perfectly in this way, an the alternative of the web of esports notoriety and politicking is in its own way an approximation of merit-based and innovation-seeking map promotion and use. It moves much more slowly. It always does. The rabblerousers are NOT wrong for agitating against this. I love the ideas and that we have this discussion. In some cases I would prefer less bickering, but whatever, open feelings are good too. By sharing my feelings I hope to impart a certain amount of confidence that things are looking good despite the raw nerves that we all feel when we see our beloved creation left by the wayside, because that's honestly how I feel. I have the utmost sense of auspiciousness about the trajectory of community mapping.
I do have one call to action, however. I would implore all the mappers who start to see success to bring everyone else with them. It's far too early to say that that isn't happening. But it's plain that some of us begin to perceive a tiered mapper community, even if it isn't really. It's been an awesome effort so far. Those of you who garner that wider attention, continue to reach out and support the up-and-comers and the desperate innovators (as I label myself). And in that environment of support, up-and-comers should feel comfortable approaching the shining lights of the map community to work with them, not compete against the prevailing philosophies.
To make this clear, here's an example of what I mean. Now that TPW has a relationship with NASL--which is awesome--I would love to see them exercise their raised status and responsibility to look into including a 3rd party map or two for the NASL open tournament map testing. It would be like sponsoring a mapper who doesn't have a team but who has an awesome creation. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a great idea and it has to happen, I'm saying this would be very cool and it's an example of what I mean in the above paragraph. It might not even have to operate so directly.
Anyway, FoxyMayhem, how on earth did you get grandmasters to play on your map?? I would love that, but I can't ever settle on one map of mine that I think deserves to be perfected to that degree, let alone find access to that level of testing input. ;D
On September 15 2011 06:27 EatThePath wrote: That is really impressive, and I agree that it should lead to something more than one shot at MotM. Along with a structure that allows resubmission or other possible improvements to recognize work like this
That's why I think MotM should select a top10 instead of top5, at the begining it was fine with a top5, there were barely enough good maps to make a top5 anyway, but now there are enough good maps to make a decent 10 (or maybe even 15) map pool every month. Most of these maps are a lot of time wasted if they don't make it to top 5, most of them won't be played ever again and that's a terrible waste.
On September 15 2011 06:27 EatThePath wrote: Imagine MotM is a "household name" in the sc2 world in several months and all segments of the community actively look to it each month for rejuvenating ideas and well-executed maps.
that's why I want the special awards back in MotM, so the maps and mappers who don't make it to the top5 can get some highlight. Even if I never made it to top5 because I'm a very bad map maker I had a texture award once, so I know my maps are stupid and imbalanced but have good aesthetics (and that's why Foxy asked me to do the aesthetics on Nighmare hollow, wich has the greatest underwater ever thanks to my artistic talent and godlike modesty).
On September 15 2011 06:27 EatThePath wrote: To make this clear, here's an example of what I mean. Now that TPW has a relationship with NASL--which is awesome--I would love to see them exercise their raised status and responsibility to look into including a 3rd party map or two for the NASL open tournament map testing. It would be like sponsoring a mapper who doesn't have a team but who has an awesome creation. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a great idea and it has to happen, I'm saying this would be very cool and it's an example of what I mean in the above paragraph. It might not even have to operate so directly.
No, seriously, don't even expect that. If you're good enough just try to join TPW, if they're serious about their team they have no interest to promote mapmakers who are not part of it, if you're really that good they should try to recruit you, not try to promote you as a freelancer.
On September 15 2011 06:27 EatThePath wrote: Anyway, FoxyMayhem, how on earth did you get grandmasters to play on your map?? I would love that, but I can't ever settle on one map of mine that I think deserves to be perfected to that degree, let alone find access to that level of testing input. ;D
Just ask them ? Try to run a tournament on your maps, eventually you'll get some masters to play it. I have master players in my tournament every month (and master on EU is better than master on NA as everyone knows).
Oh, and also huge GG to TPW for your partnership with NASL, if I didn't decide to quit mapmaking I'd definitely try to join your team. Wait, what ? I quit ? Yes, I quit mapmaking, that was my last MotM and I failed again, sour.
Don't leave fenX Your map were always so good looking I always taught you were one of the best with working with texture and doodad. I would have wish someday you make the texture and doodad of one my map.
This is a sad day for map making losing one of his best artist
On September 15 2011 06:27 EatThePath wrote: Imagine MotM is a "household name" in the sc2 world in several months and all segments of the community actively look to it each month for rejuvenating ideas and well-executed maps. Major tournaments will watch for potential new maps as a matter of course, and players will discuss maps in threads whose length and cacophony of imba! cries rivals patch notes threads. In this environment, if you submit a map that goes as Nightmare Hollow went--with a map thread detailing all kinds of testing, refinement, consideration and reconsideration, etc.--but it doesn't get picked as a finalist... it may get picked up by a tournament organizer who sees it anyway and likes it! This is what exposure will create.
This is what I've come up with, as well, when trying to envision the future of MotM in light of recent sponsorships. It will be interesting to see if we're right.
On September 15 2011 06:27 EatThePath wrote: I do have one call to action, however. I would implore all the mappers who start to see success to bring everyone else with them. It's far too early to say that that isn't happening. But it's plain that some of us begin to perceive a tiered mapper community, even if it isn't really. It's been an awesome effort so far. Those of you who garner that wider attention, continue to reach out and support the up-and-comers and the desperate innovators (as I label myself). And in that environment of support, up-and-comers should feel comfortable approaching the shining lights of the map community to work with them, not compete against the prevailing philosophies.
Beautiful, I love the vision you have for this.
Consider the following a notice of alert for those trying to make this come about, though.
To illustrate: my mother is one of the best horse breeders in the Arabian Horse Industry, of this I have no doubt. Her horses are consistently healthier, better balanced, clearer thinkers, friendlier, and with less genetic defects than the majority of popular horse bloodlines out there, while still retaining the desirable Arabian look. I mean, maybe I don't know as much as I think I do when it comes to these thing, but it is clear she excels at it, and that's all that's neededs to be known to illustrate the point.
Now, based on what I've seen of her experience and from her discussions, there are roughly three categories of people with knowledge on breeding and raising horses: 1) Those who know nothing 2) Those who realized they were ignorant, gained a little knowledge, and now think they know everything 3) Those who realize just how much they don't know, even though they've studied and practiced for decades 4) Those who skip # 2.
# 3 are the professionals. They are excellent, humble, confident, and respectful. They are the people you want to work with.
#2 are often dangerous to the industry (there are those who never become #2, but, unfortunately, it's a very natural mindset to fall into -- I catch myself doing it with almost any new skill I try to acquire, and have to correct my thinking.) I've seen #2s make horses end up dead or traumatize for life, or perpetuate terrible genetic defects, or sink masses of investor money in projects doomed to fail because they only understand small part of they need to. The worst traits are being close minded, and if anything doesn't match up to the bit of knowledge that they have, they dismiss or critize it.
And often they are vocal about their opinions, spreading their ignorance to #1s. They also often can become condescending and dismissive of #1s, when the only real difference between them is a week-long seminar.
Part of the reason #2s exist because the world is far more complicated than we want it to be or we either expect it to be simpler than it is, or decide that what he know is the truth of it to reassure ourselves. Those who avoid falling into this trap, who skip from 1 to 3, are those who remain curious and recognize that mastery of the task takes more than a lifetime.
I do believe map making is simpler than breeding, training, raising, developing, managing etc... a horse operation, so perhaps "more than a lifetime" does not apply. But, it will probably take at least a decade of consistent mapping, and maybe not even then.
So, to you I say: do not become #2s. Keep humble in your knowledge. It's a treasure to have gained and wonderful to share, but it is tiny compared to theoretical absolute knowledge of map making. Remember that you have only explored a part of that knowledge, and someone else may have explored a different part, and you are only harming yourself by rejecting their knowledge because it's not what you know.
It would be amazing but unlikely if there never is a #2. We're probably going to have to deal with them. Matching their condescension and arrogance with your own is not how it should be handled, that achieves nothing but creating a hostile environment, division, and leaves them in their ignorance. The best I understand how to help is to educate the receptive ones and ignore the most bullheaded ones -- they've set their path at that point, there is little you can do to change it.
Wow that got long. But, really, this is something that would really benifit the community to be aware of. I've seen part of the horse industry torn up because of it, and I don't want this creative group to experience it with their pants down. The most active mappers read this thread, hopefully we can minimize the division and strife by being aware and prepared. I don't want to be preachy, take it or leave it.
<3s
(Of course, remember those categories are very general. They illustrate a trend, not that everyone is exactly one of those, and I don't mean to be condescending with that explanation. This is just the trends and issues I have observed.)
Anyway, FoxyMayhem, how on earth did you get grandmasters to play on your map?? I would love that, but I can't ever settle on one map of mine that I think deserves to be perfected to that degree, let alone find access to that level of testing input. ;D
Well, ya see, heh heh... I've got friends. I'm also a pretty personable, occasionally funny guy to talk to on skype -- although I probably come off a bit stiff-in-the-collar on the forums. Eh, I blame text-base communication. This relevant because testing with them becomes "just hanging out" instead of the more bothersome "will you do me a favor, peeeeezzz".
NOT the answer you wanted to hear, amirite? For some reason my diamond level friend/clanny has like 12 high masters players on his list, who in turn have grandmasters on their lists. Being in a clan helps, too.
To be honest, it's the masters players who help most: they tend to be willing to play more games and execute more experimental and exploitative strategies, since they're not having to face perfect 4gates or whatever. I'd suggest sticking with them until you feel you're map is closer to that tournament level. Still, Grandmaster testing is great once the map has seen a lot of diamond and master level testing and appears to be balanced: there are some balance issues that only they can reveal.
If you've (or any of the mappers here) have a baller map that needs testing, though, I might be able to hook you up. I've had them test other people's maps before. Like I said, though, grandmasters are for "I think it's already done and balanced" stages. If I give them faulty maps to play on they are going to be much less inclined to assist in the future.
They really don't care about aesthetics, though, so that doesn't need to be finished. I like checking out other peoples matches and talking with the mapper while games are going on, so hit me up some time and I'll see if I can get the masters folk to play on it, or talk map stuff.
Skype: psalm.of.fire SC2: FoxyMayhem.926
Make sure to introduce yourself as a mapper when you add me on Skype, or I might block you. Since I'm making a broad offer to people here, I reserve the right to *not* ask my masters friends and just talk map theory if I see some glaring flaws.
[silly] Actually, let's go one better: if it's worse than Rockstin Rockder (which, let's be frank, every map is) I reserve the right to block you and send the police to your house. Exceptions are at my sole discretion![/silly]
On September 15 2011 08:18 Icetoad wrote: Don't leave fenX Your map were always so good looking I always taught you were one of the best with working with texture and doodad.
That is so true! Your map was my first pick for MotM#9 and I really love your work. I'd really hate to see you go man
FenX, maybe you need some time away, or maybe you need to quit, I can respect that. But I really do think two-man teams have a huge role in the future. I know I, for one, would love to work with you again. I've got your name slapped all over my map: in the long description (the one seen the most), three times in the map thread, in the submission. Without you I could not enter MotM, and months of testing and refinement would still be sitting on my hard drive instead of competing. I'd have to spend so much time learning and experiments to do half as good of a job as you did, time I'm very please to say I can now continue to focus toward balance.
TL;DR You make my life easier, my skill (at balance) greater, and I've value what you've done greatly. I really, really do. Thank you so much. You may need to step away, but please don't close the door forever just yet. You are an amazing asset (with godlike humility), and I hope to make awesome, winning maps to show off your artistic skill in tournaments to come.
FenX, although I am a member of the TPW map team, I can tell you that I am the only member who has only been a finalist once in 9 motm tournaments, and I didn't win it, but I continue to do what I love doing, and that is being creative. I know you make good maps, and I notice yours don't make it often, but it takes time to achieve something.
Don't give up! Just because things aren't going your way doesn't mean you should quit! I completely understand if map making adds unnecessary stress to your life, and that you need time away for a while, but forever? Giving up is something that you should never do, even if your at rock bottom.
I'm sure your not as hopeless as this guy who tried to drown himself in a urinal. Oh, and did I mention that you are very talented? I could never make anything as beautiful as that. Now get on your feet and make some maps! Or partner with someone and decorate some maps!
EDIT: I never got a map into top five until Hysteria, and that was my 5th try!
Hey everyone, first I just want to say thanks to each of you who submitted a map this month. I'll admit I don't really enjoy being critical or passing judgment, but I'll write a bit about each map and my thoughts on it. Remember we all started somewhere, and there's only one way to get better and that's to keep making maps!
As a guest judge this is somewhat of an assumption, but I think most months have map submissions that are practically guaranteed top 5, however this month there were 9-10 really good maps that each had reasons for and against making the top 5. The maps that did were at some point all in contention, and some really good maps only just missed out.
Anyway, here's my thoughts on the maps themselves; First, the top 5:
ESV Bardiche - Bardiche's biggest strength is it's intriguing layout. The interaction between the large open spaces and tight chokes is extreme, and the two highground paths around the outside, connected via 3 paths through the middle should make for some very interesting engagements and space control. We pretty much all agreed that this map while not the most beautiful will definitely produce some great games.
ESV Derelict - Derelict is a very solid map. Nothing too experimental in terms of its design, but it's still a fresh and very clean concept. The aesthetics are again, very clean, perhaps maybe too much so, but it's a pleasant theme that's not distracting and quite original. All in all there's not a whole lot wrong with Derelict, the third might be a little hard to take by comparison to recent standards but I disagree with it being an exclusively 2 base map.
TPW Emerald Jungle - Emerald Jungle is beautifully lush. It's one of the nicest jungle maps I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot! ). It's layout seems to borrow multiple proven concepts from some other maps and combine them into something new. It's just a very solid and well-made map and I think it's worthy of a spot in the top 5.
TPW Overgrown - Overgrown was a difficult choice. First, aesthetically it's very nice, and quite original. I've seen people try the concept before but this map has the best execution of the theme. As for the layout, yes, it's very similar to Shakuras Plateau, that's no secret - but the differences that do exist should actually greatly alter the way games play on this map. The fact that the paths north and south of the middle are far more accessible, open and grant watchtower access means more options when it comes to engaging the opponent. If anything it wasn't Overgrown's similarity to SP that nearly stopped it reaching the top 5, but instead a lot of the judges thought the entire middle was a little too big/open. That aside, the map is great to look at and in my opinion should play better than Shakuras.
TPW Tenarsis - Tenarsis again was quite a difficult choice. The proportions on this map are particularly good, everything is spaced out really well and the expansions are well placed. It's not particularly groundbreaking but good maps don't necessarily have to be. Aesthetically, there's a custom texture which itself is really nice, but the way it's used could be better I think. The natural areas of the map are gorgeous though.
CloudNine - This is a decent "Desert Oasis"-style map, but personally I don't like maps with the natural behind the main. CloudNine does a pretty good job but the expansion placement seems a little haphazard though it's by no means bad. Aesthetically it's quite nice, decent texturing and some nice details, however the left and right borders should have some space so the map edge isn't visible in-game, and it might be a tiny bit too bright. Shows promise though.
Back To Back - This map reminds me of a WC3 map, it's very colourful and quite pretty but perhaps a little too vivid. While I kind of like the main/natural setup the ramp placement feels really awkward. The biggest problem here I think is not the main/nat but every expo after that. It's very hard to take a third on this map, and even more difficult to take a 4th base, they're just too spread out and the map itself is a bit too big. I think if you concentrated on making a more standard layout the end result could be quite good.
Reakray - While I'll happily commend entering an 8 player map, Reakray has it's fair share of problems. Xelnaga Towers that see into the main is just a straight up no to begin with, and expanding on this map is very strange. The natural is quite easy, a third is very hard, then a 4th is potentially quite easy, a 5th base is practically impossible though. For competitive purposes, this map's just too big, and while it's a cool experiment, the expansion pattern, proportions and aesthetics could be better. Making a concept like this work as a 1v1 map is very ambitious if not altogether impossible, but props for trying.
Rockstin Rockder - Sadly the map file wasn't submitted, so we had to officially DQ this map. Great joke though <3
oZz Flamestrike - Flamestrike is a good map. It's nice to look at, quite well textured and detailed. The doodad structures in the middle are particularly cool. I don't like, or understand the reasoning behind the 6 patch/2 gas thirds, it seems to kind of stifle the late game. The gold bases are also probably too hard to hold. The layout just feels a bit simple or uninspired. It's not a bad map though, and if anything shows a lot of potential/promise.
TPW Ohana - Ohana was close to making the top 5. While the theme is effectively lifted from Belshir Beach, the execution is still really nice and all in all it's a beautiful map. The placement of the expansion's is a bit quirky though. The main/nat/third are mostly fine, but taking a 4th base is a bit weird in terms of what options that leaves for a 5th base. I feel like this map could really benefit from an additional base or slightly tweaking the 4th/5th expo positions. It's still very good and very much playable, but was just edged out of the top 5.
Crater RE - This map's not bad. It's a little too big, and the lack of variation in the textures brings it down some what, but there's still decent attention to detail. While I applaud using just the one texture set, honestly, that Redstone Lava Cracks texture is just horrible. The map would look so much better if you just switched that one texture out for something better, and tried to vary up the areas a bit more so it's less uniform. Again though, this map shows some good potential.
TPW Damage, Inc. - Damage is another map that very nearly made the top 5. The concept of "2 maps in 1" is awesome and something that more people should try, and the visual theme of the map is original and well done. The main reason why this map didn't make the top 5 was sadly, probably for being too experimental. The mineral blocks are a cool idea but I think they could be implemented better, and the concept of 3 bases all on the same cliff level is intriguing but it can cause problems (most obviously 4gate power in pvp). Definitely one of the best truly original maps that was submitted but perhaps it just tried too hard to stand out? Great map though.
Steadfast Fortress - This map is quite similar to the last in that it shares the "2 maps in 1" concept. It's also proportioned quite well, with a nice mix of good size chokes and open spaces. There's a few little things that cause problems though, the location of the main ramp at the 1/7 positions is a bit exposed, the two watchtowers in the middle seem a bit unnecessary and I don't know how I feel about the gas placement at the 3/9 naturals. Aesthetically it's quite pleasant, cool colours and interesting details, like a tranquil dreamscape, but the texturing could be improved, I think there's a few too many straight lines of terrain and the theme seems a bit out of place in a sci-fi game maybe.
Monolyth Memories - This is actually a really nice map. The vibrant purple works really well with the bronze/blue tones of the terrain, it's very stylistic and visually pleasing. I think just a few problems with the layout lets this map down slightly. Namely, taking a third is quite hard, both options are fairly distant, one being blocked by rocks and only having 5 patches and 1 gas, the other is quite open to abuse from siege tanks/colossus etc. It might also be a little tight overall in terms of proportions, but it's not bad by any means. A good, solid map that fell just outside of the top maps for me.
ESV Taonas - At first glance this is a very cool map. Some fresh ideas and overall great execution on the theme and concept. I think however it's just a bit too big, and the middle is kind of huge and a bit empty, it feels like your whole army could just get lost in the woods :D. I think it's a bit too zerg favored, lots of open space, big distances, big potential for counter-attacks. Taonas very nearly made the top 5 though, a testament to how much we liked both what it did and also tried to do.
Whiteout - The overview image of this map doesn't do it justice, the Zhakul'Das lighting combined with the metal and snow create a very striking theme, it's actually very beautiful, though if anything maybe a little barren/empty. I think this map is brought down by a few quite minor things; the natural feels very open and the ramps down to the lowground base feel awkwardly placed. If the lowground base was reworked slightly to make a better third expo, I think this could be a really good map. I'd also like to suggest taking higher quality overview pics, as this map is so much nicer than the images might make you think. If you don't know how or if your PC isn't quite up to the task, I'm sure the mapping community is more than happy to help.
Meinhoff Encroached - The layout here is quite good, relatively standard but still very solid. The proportions for the most part are good too. The natural is maybe a little too open as is the counter-clockwise third. This map might benefit from an additional base, perhaps a bit more neutral or central, as all of the expo's are around the edges of the map. I think the single biggest thing that can be improved is the texturing, it's not terrible but it's also not up to the same standard as the layout. Try to differentiate more between the different areas of the map, everything looks kind of the same. Another very promising map though.
Stormy Plains - I love the aesthetics on this map, it's beautiful and very atmospheric. It's hard to comment regarding the layout/balance, as it's asymmetric. I don't really feel like significantly asymmetric maps are ready for competitive/tournament play just yet (or ever will be, who knows) which is basically why this map was left out of potential top 5 placement. As far as asymmetric maps go though, this one does a great job. I'd love to see a truly balanced/symmetric map with a similar level quality in the visuals.
Relaxation - This is a crazy looking map, and I kind of like it. It's a combination of things that you think wouldn't work but actually do, at the same time though it's probably not for everyone. The layout has some issues however, particularly how easy it is to get to and turtle on 4 bases and how hard it is to take a 5th after that. All of the entrances into your 4th are quite narrow and easy to control. The middle gold bases are also kind of pointless. The expansions need to be spaced out a little more and the third/fourth a bit less safe. But props for coming up with a crazy theme and making it work quite well.
Nightmare Hollow - This is another map in which the overview doesn't do it justice. Aesthetically this map's very pretty. I love the underwater details and the custom doodad textures, the watchtowers are super nice. As for the layout, it doesn't flow as well as it could. There's nothing truly wrong with specifically, except it maybe being a bit too big, and I don't know about the main backdoor, it's OK I guess. As I said, the different areas just don't flow into each other as well as they could, and the proportions are a little off in places. It's still a good map and shows great potential.
Ulnar Nightmares - Sadly we didn't receive the map file for this submission.
Bel'Shir Swamp - While basing a map on a proven concept like metalopolis is a good idea for a starting point, it's typically not going to win much merit as a concept (don't start shit about TPW Overgrown cause I said this please). However, given that this is your second map ever, you show a lot of promise when it comes to the visuals especially. The textures for the most part are quite well done and the middle is nice but might get in the way of gameplay a little. If you can come up with a solid original layout and put some time in to making it look nice I think you could end up with a really good map, keep at it.
Aldebaran - The visuals on this map are really nice, I can't really fault it in that respect. However, it's practically impossible for us to take everything into consideration when it comes to balance for pro-level competition on asymmetric maps in the timeframe that we have. So, significantly asymmetric maps will most likely not make the top 5 unless they're already proven to be really well balanced. That said, this is a really nice map and I hope that asymmetric maps do have a future in SC2. Good job.
LoS_Dark Matter - This for me was one of the hardest maps to leave out of the top 5. First of all, it's beautiful - space station maps are hardly new but this one executes the theme perfectly. Just the right amount of detail without being cluttered, and the textures are similarly awesome. The map features a rather innovative main/nat setup, which most of the judges really liked, and was not the reason it was left out. Rather, we felt there was potential for positional imbalances in close positions regarding expanding. Essentially, the counter-clockwise player has to expand more aggressively when taking a third compared to the clockwise player. I think the map might also be a bit imba for T in close positions, though I think cross-positions on this map would be sick! I really liked this map, and would personally have loved to see it in the top 5, I hope one way or the other this isn't the last we see of it.
Heartstone Canyon - This is a good, solid map. The layout is quite good, but options for 4th bases are maybe a bit distant and the watchtowers could maybe be placed a bit better. The bases in general seem to be too clustered in the corners of the map. Aesthetically it's nice, Mar'Sara is hard to make pretty in my opinion but this map does a good job. I do however think that this map lacks either the aesthetic punch or creative flair necessary to make it a top 5 map, but it's a very good effort and shows a great deal of potential.
Shakuras Proving Grounds - The texture work on this map is beautiful, really nice. Visually the only thing I don't like about it is there's a few too many straight lines in the terrain, but that aside it's a nice looking map.The layout has a couple of problems with proportions (the middle is too open), cross positions might be a bit too long and the expo's seem a bit too condensed around the outside of the map. It's very clean though, and I like that, I'm looking forward to seeing another map by lawol.
Venti - This is a very good 3p map. The proportions are excellent, it's well balanced for a 3p and the expo layout is great. The texturing is quite nice, the map is quite clean, but it just feels empty and some of the doodads used don't really fit the theme. I know it's a desert map so it's supposed to be kind of empty, but it just feels too bland and lacking detail in general. It's a bit of a shame cause the layout is very good, a little more time spent on aesthetics and this could have been a contender for top 5.
Harmony - This is a pretty good map with some nice aesthetic touches. I'm not a massive fan of the Monolyth Bricks texture in general, but it's used really well here. There's a nice moody atmosphere to the map that works quite well. There might be a slight positional imbalance when taking a third, it's hard to say as I haven't seen enough games to determine just how those mineral blocks will work (similar to Damage Inc.). Also, the gold bases are very hard to take and only one gas makes it seem not worth it. I think if the gold base was reworked into a more viable standard expo this could be a really good map, pending the verdict on mineral blocked expo's.
Galactic HQ - This map is... perculiar, both technically and visually. I was quite skeptical as to what to think at first, but the more I look at it the more I like this map. The aesthetics are very clean and while there are some unusual elements like the LOSB's in the mains, they actually look awesome! The fog and night lighting make for a great atmosphere and the details in general are really nice. Reiterating my previous statements though, it's hard for us to include (significantly) asymmetrical maps because we simply don't have time to test them to the required extent for us to say it's competitively viable. I don't want to dissuade people from submitting asymmetric maps in the future but it's unlikely that one will make the top 5 (sorry ;x).
Embattled City - The general layout concept of this map is quite good. The placement of the expo's is fine and the proportions are pretty solid too though the ramps to middle expo's need to be bigger and the entrances to the third are a bit tight/awkward. However, the terrain is a quite uninspired with lots of straight lines and the texture's can definitely be improved. Aesthetically it's definitely not on the same level as the top maps this month, but don't let that deter you. You seem to have a lot of the basics when it comes to making a solid layout down, so if you concentrate on the visuals and terrain I think you're next map could be quite good.
Stepway - Again going to reiterate my previous comments regarding asymmetric maps, we just can't determine if they're balanced/ready for competetive or tournament play. This map has a few questionable things going on though; the proportions in some parts of the map are a bit too extreme (really tight highground on the right side of the map particularly, the rest is ok) and I don't know what's going on with all the cloud shadow doodads at the top of the map :D I can tell a decent amount of time was spent on textures, but they could still be improved I think. The general expo pattern is good though so I think there's definitely some potential here.
Master System - The rock textures and some of the details on this map are really nice (the big crystals and thing in the middle for example) but the tiled textures could be a bit better (though using the Ulnar Hull textures is really hard I will admit). However, the map's a bit oversized, and I think could benefit extremely well from being condensed a little bit. The proportions and general concept are very sound though, if nothing else it's a map that shows a lot of promise.
TPW Concrete Dreams - This map is a beauty to behold. The time spent on the details on this map just ooze straight back out of it, simply gorgeous. It's a shame it wasn't completely finished when it was submitted, but despite that it still nearly made the top 5. It's hard to really pick faults in this map, just overall a solid map with amazing aesthetics. I'm going to be honest and say one of the only reasons it was left out of the top 5 was because of what was said last month regarding 4p rotational maps.
Hypnosis Bridge - This map has some quirky ideas, and for a fun map it certainly looks like it would be fun to play on. The proportions of the attack paths are pretty good so it should play reasonably well, but it's probably too experimental to be top5 material and really, the aesthetics do need some work. Don't be afraid to get stuck in with the textures and maybe pick two textures per cliff height and try your hand at blending them. Regardless of how experimental or serious you want the layout to be, I think you could greatly improve your maps by putting more time into style and visuals, and practice makes perfect
Pyramus Outpost - It's a shame we recieved the map file for this one late, cause it's quite a decent map. The layout is pretty solid, I think maybe you could do something with the wasted space between the two naturals, and 4 watchtowers might be too many. The rush distances might also be a shade too long but personally I think it's ok. The proportions are really good though, so nice job there. Aesthetically, there's some really nice things going on, I love the red borders in the mains, and I can tell you spent a lot of time on the textures which look good. That said, there's a few little things (some areas feel a bit empty, gaps between manmade/natural cliffs, perhaps too many straight lines in the terrain) that alone aren't too significant but add up. For a relatively new mapmaker though, this is a very promising map, very well done. Oh and, that 500% scale Flashing Lights doodad is sick, I might have to steal that idea
OK, I think that's all of them, please let me know and I apologize in advance if I left one out!
Note: These are my thoughts and don't necessarily reflect the other judges' opinions.
With that said, I'd like to comment on what's been said here since the top 5 have been announced. First, regarding solid, proven concepts versus innovation and creativity; we have to tread a very fine line here. Starcraft 2 is still very young, and the metagame, viable strategies and such can all change at the tip of a hat. With that in mind, we have to be careful when it comes to innovative map concepts and introduce them slowly, a similar approach to how Blizzard patches the game.
We also (as judges) can't simply include maps for the sole reason that they are creative/innovative. We take everything into consideration when choosing the top 5, and maps do certainly get bonus points for doing things differently so long as it benefits the overall core concept of the map. If two maps are equal in balance and aesthetics, but one does something new that we think has the potential to work well, I'd like to think that map has a greater chance of making the top 5, but innovation for the sake of innovation just isn't necessary.
I think it's right that MotM chooses the 5 best maps submitted each month. "Best" is obviously completely subjective, but a good map doesn't have to be innovative, just as an innovative map isn't necessarily good. We're not trying to stifle creativity, but we have to be careful in how we reward it too. The fact that maps like TPW Concrete Dreams were left out mostly for being unoriginal (at least in the context of previous winners) I think should be a testament to the importance of creativity and fresh ideas in this competition.
Winning a MotM is somewhat of a double-edged sword in that well, winning is nice, but judging is... hard, to say the least. Making decisions that you know will break people's hearts, and in a lot of cases spell doom for potentially amazing maps is not an easy or pleasant thing to do. We don't choose TPW/ESV maps for any reason other than they are often the best submitted. That said, the general quality of the maps submitted this month was nothing short of amazing, and the gap between the best and the rest (if there even is such a thing) is ever-shrinking. So, don't give up hope, make a good map, and you'll stand a good chance of making it the top 5. But, at the end of the day only 5 can be chosen so it's inevitable some great maps will only just miss out.
For now, that concludes this epic post. I'll try and write some semi-official awards if I can but this post alone has taken literally days of my free time to write.
Oh and fenX, don't quit. At least come talk to me first, my PM inbox is always open (and that applies to everyone).
On September 15 2011 09:16 funcmode wrote: Hypnosis Bridge - I don't think we recieved the map file for this map, but from what I can see in the overview it looks quite experimental. I'm not too sure about the non-standard stuff, but the basic layout looks quite decent. However, I do think you should focus on your aesthetics for your next submission . Thanks for reading.
This makes me quite sad. While I didn't think I really had a shot (my submission, like my map was by and large for fun... with a distant hope of course), I *did* submit a map file and I *did* receive an email from submit.motm@gmail.com which said "Received. Thanks!"
I do hope you get a chance to give it a quick looksee even if not for its asthetic. (It is also up on NA in case the file I sent got lost somehow...)
On September 15 2011 09:16 funcmode wrote: Hypnosis Bridge - I don't think we recieved the map file for this map, but from what I can see in the overview it looks quite experimental. I'm not too sure about the non-standard stuff, but the basic layout looks quite decent. However, I do think you should focus on your aesthetics for your next submission . Thanks for reading.
This makes me quite sad. While I didn't think I really had a shot (my submission, like my map was by and large for fun... with a distant hope of course), I *did* submit a map file and I *did* receive an email from submit.motm@gmail.com which said "Received. Thanks!"
I do hope you get a chance to give it a quick looksee even if not for its asthetic. (It is also up on NA in case the file I sent got lost somehow...)
You're totally right, my apologies. I have the map file now and I'll definitely give it a closer look. Sorry about this.
We also recieved a late file submission for Pyramus Outpost, so while it's too late to change our decisions I'll post my thoughts on that one too.
Truly epic post there Func. It's pretty insightful to see so much thoughtful feedback on all the maps, and not just mine. I do try to constantly improve my craft in the way of mapmaking though, so although I may not always get the best aesthetics, the balance is always something I'm trying to refine. I also like trying new things here and there where I feel I can fit it in too, so it does get pretty fun when I hit on something good. I've got something with potential in the works now, in fact, and have got no intention of giving this up. It's really a lot of fun once you get better at it. It's truly an interactive art form.
-(don't start shit about TPW Overgrown cause I said this please)
RAWR! TPW Overgrown!
- However, given that this is your second map ever, you show a lot of promise when it comes to the visuals especially... If you can come up with a solid original layout and put some time in to making it look nice I think you could end up with a really good map, keep at it.
Thanks! As I said, I'm still just learning how to make maps through some experimentation. I appreciate having people look it over.
On September 15 2011 09:16 funcmode wrote: Hey everyone, first I just want to say thanks to each of you who submitted a map this month. I'll admit I don't really enjoy being critical or passing judgment, but I'll write a bit about each map and my thoughts on it. Remember we all started somewhere, and there's only one way to get better and that's to keep making maps!
As a guest judge this is somewhat of an assumption, but I think most months have map submissions that are practically guaranteed top 5, however this month there were 9-10 really good maps that each had reasons for and against making the top 5. The maps that did were at some point all in contention, and some really good maps only just missed out.
Anyway, here's my thoughts on the maps themselves; First, the top 5:
ESV Bardiche - Bardiche's biggest strength is it's intriguing layout. The interaction between the large open spaces and tight chokes is extreme, and the two highground paths around the outside, connected via 3 paths through the middle should make for some very interesting engagements and space control. We pretty much all agreed that this map while not the most beautiful will definitely produce some great games.
ESV Derelict - Derelict is a very solid map. Nothing too experimental in terms of its design, but it's still a fresh and very clean concept. The aesthetics are again, very clean, perhaps maybe too much so, but it's a pleasant theme that's not distracting and quite original. All in all there's not a whole lot wrong with Derelict, the third might be a little hard to take by comparison to recent standards but I disagree with it being an exclusively 2 base map.
TPW Emerald Jungle - Emerald Jungle is beautifully lush. It's one of the nicest jungle maps I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot! ). It's layout seems to borrow multiple proven concepts from some other maps and combine them into something new. It's just a very solid and well-made map and I think it's worthy of a spot in the top 5.
TPW Overgrown - Overgrown was a difficult choice. First, aesthetically it's very nice, and quite original. I've seen people try the concept before but this map has the best execution of the theme. As for the layout, yes, it's very similar to Shakuras Plateau, that's no secret - but the differences that do exist should actually greatly alter the way games play on this map. The fact that the paths north and south of the middle are far more accessible, open and grant watchtower access means more options when it comes to engaging the opponent. If anything it wasn't Overgrown's similarity to SP that nearly stopped it reaching the top 5, but instead a lot of the judges thought the entire middle was a little too big/open. That aside, the map is great to look at and in my opinion should play better than Shakuras.
TPW Tenarsis - Tenarsis again was quite a difficult choice. The proportions on this map are particularly good, everything is spaced out really well and the expansions are well placed. It's not particularly groundbreaking but good maps don't necessarily have to be. Aesthetically, there's a custom texture which itself is really nice, but the way it's used could be better I think. The natural areas of the map are gorgeous though.
CloudNine - This is a decent "Desert Oasis"-style map, but personally I don't like maps with the natural behind the main. CloudNine does a pretty good job but the expansion placement seems a little haphazard though it's by no means bad. Aesthetically it's quite nice, decent texturing and some nice details, however the left and right borders should have some space so the map edge isn't visible in-game, and it might be a tiny bit too bright. Shows promise though.
Back To Back - This map reminds me of a WC3 map, it's very colourful and quite pretty but perhaps a little too vivid. While I kind of like the main/natural setup the ramp placement feels really awkward. The biggest problem here I think is not the main/nat but every expo after that. It's very hard to take a third on this map, and even more difficult to take a 4th base, they're just too spread out and the map itself is a bit too big. I think if you concentrated on making a more standard layout the end result could be quite good.
Reakray - While I'll happily commend entering an 8 player map, Reakray has it's fair share of problems. Xelnaga Towers that see into the main is just a straight up no to begin with, and expanding on this map is very strange. The natural is quite easy, a third is very hard, then a 4th is potentially quite easy, a 5th base is practically impossible though. For competitive purposes, this map's just too big, and while it's a cool experiment, the expansion pattern, proportions and aesthetics could be better. Making a concept like this work as a 1v1 map is very ambitious if not altogether impossible, but props for trying.
Rockstin Rockder - Sadly the map file wasn't submitted, so we had to officially DQ this map. Great joke though <3
oZz Flamestrike - Flamestrike is a good map. It's nice to look at, quite well textured and detailed. The doodad structures in the middle are particularly cool. I don't like, or understand the reasoning behind the 6 patch/2 gas thirds, it seems to kind of stifle the late game. The gold bases are also probably too hard to hold. The layout just feels a bit simple or uninspired. It's not a bad map though, and if anything shows a lot of potential/promise.
TPW Ohana - Ohana was close to making the top 5. While the theme is effectively lifted from Belshir Beach, the execution is still really nice and all in all it's a beautiful map. The placement of the expansion's is a bit quirky though. The main/nat/third are mostly fine, but taking a 4th base is a bit weird in terms of what options that leaves for a 5th base. I feel like this map could really benefit from an additional base or slightly tweaking the 4th/5th expo positions. It's still very good and very much playable, but was just edged out of the top 5.
Crater RE - This map's not bad. It's a little too big, and the lack of variation in the textures brings it down some what, but there's still decent attention to detail. While I applaud using just the one texture set, honestly, that Redstone Lava Cracks texture is just horrible. The map would look so much better if you just switched that one texture out for something better, and tried to vary up the areas a bit more so it's less uniform. Again though, this map shows some good potential.
TPW Damage, Inc. - Damage is another map that very nearly made the top 5. The concept of "2 maps in 1" is awesome and something that more people should try, and the visual theme of the map is original and well done. The main reason why this map didn't make the top 5 was sadly, probably for being too experimental. The mineral blocks are a cool idea but I think they could be implemented better, and the concept of 3 bases all on the same cliff level is intriguing but it can cause problems (most obviously 4gate power in pvp). Definitely one of the best truly original maps that was submitted but perhaps it just tried too hard to stand out? Great map though.
Steadfast Fortress - This map is quite similar to the last in that it shares the "2 maps in 1" concept. It's also proportioned quite well, with a nice mix of good size chokes and open spaces. There's a few little things that cause problems though, the location of the main ramp at the 1/7 positions is a bit exposed, the two watchtowers in the middle seem a bit unnecessary and I don't know how I feel about the gas placement at the 3/9 naturals. Aesthetically it's quite pleasant, cool colours and interesting details, like a tranquil dreamscape, but the texturing could be improved, I think there's a few too many straight lines of terrain and the theme seems a bit out of place in a sci-fi game maybe.
Monolyth Memories - This is actually a really nice map. The vibrant purple works really well with the bronze/blue tones of the terrain, it's very stylistic and visually pleasing. I think just a few problems with the layout lets this map down slightly. Namely, taking a third is quite hard, both options are fairly distant, one being blocked by rocks and only having 5 patches and 1 gas, the other is quite open to abuse from siege tanks/colossus etc. It might also be a little tight overall in terms of proportions, but it's not bad by any means. A good, solid map that fell just outside of the top maps for me.
ESV Taonas - At first glance this is a very cool map. Some fresh ideas and overall great execution on the theme and concept. I think however it's just a bit too big, and the middle is kind of huge and a bit empty, it feels like your whole army could just get lost in the woods :D. I think it's a bit too zerg favored, lots of open space, big distances, big potential for counter-attacks. Taonas very nearly made the top 5 though, a testament to how much we liked both what it did and also tried to do.
Whiteout - The overview image of this map doesn't do it justice, the Zhakul'Das lighting combined with the metal and snow create a very striking theme, it's actually very beautiful, though if anything maybe a little barren/empty. I think this map is brought down by a few quite minor things; the natural feels very open and the ramps down to the lowground base feel awkwardly placed. If the lowground base was reworked slightly to make a better third expo, I think this could be a really good map. I'd also like to suggest taking higher quality overview pics, as this map is so much nicer than the images might make you think. If you don't know how or if your PC isn't quite up to the task, I'm sure the mapping community is more than happy to help.
Meinhoff Encroached - The layout here is quite good, relatively standard but still very solid. The proportions for the most part are good too. The natural is maybe a little too open as is the counter-clockwise third. This map might benefit from an additional base, perhaps a bit more neutral or central, as all of the expo's are around the edges of the map. I think the single biggest thing that can be improved is the texturing, it's not terrible but it's also not up to the same standard as the layout. Try to differentiate more between the different areas of the map, everything looks kind of the same. Another very promising map though.
Stormy Plains - I love the aesthetics on this map, it's beautiful and very atmospheric. It's hard to comment regarding the layout/balance, as it's asymmetric. I don't really feel like significantly asymmetric maps are ready for competitive/tournament play just yet (or ever will be, who knows) which is basically why this map was left out of potential top 5 placement. As far as asymmetric maps go though, this one does a great job. I'd love to see a truly balanced/symmetric map with a similar level quality in the visuals.
Relaxation - This is a crazy looking map, and I kind of like it. It's a combination of things that you think wouldn't work but actually do, at the same time though it's probably not for everyone. The layout has some issues however, particularly how easy it is to get to and turtle on 4 bases and how hard it is to take a 5th after that. All of the entrances into your 4th are quite narrow and easy to control. The middle gold bases are also kind of pointless. The expansions need to be spaced out a little more and the third/fourth a bit less safe. But props for coming up with a crazy theme and making it work quite well.
Nightmare Hollow - This is another map in which the overview doesn't do it justice. Aesthetically this map's very pretty. I love the underwater details and the custom doodad textures, the watchtowers are super nice. As for the layout, it doesn't flow as well as it could. There's nothing truly wrong with specifically, except it maybe being a bit too big, and I don't know about the main backdoor, it's OK I guess. As I said, the different areas just don't flow into each other as well as they could, and the proportions are a little off in places. It's still a good map and shows great potential.
Ulnar Nightmares - Sadly we didn't receive the map file for this submission.
Bel'Shir Swamp - While basing a map on a proven concept like metalopolis is a good idea for a starting point, it's typically not going to win much merit as a concept (don't start shit about TPW Overgrown cause I said this please). However, given that this is your second map ever, you show a lot of promise when it comes to the visuals especially. The textures for the most part are quite well done and the middle is nice but might get in the way of gameplay a little. If you can come up with a solid original layout and put some time in to making it look nice I think you could end up with a really good map, keep at it.
Pyramus Outpost - Pretty sure we didn't recieve the map file for this one either =/
Aldebaran - The visuals on this map are really nice, I can't really fault it in that respect. However, it's practically impossible for us to take everything into consideration when it comes to balance for pro-level competition on asymmetric maps in the timeframe that we have. So, significantly asymmetric maps will most likely not make the top 5 unless they're already proven to be really well balanced. That said, this is a really nice map and I hope that asymmetric maps do have a future in SC2. Good job.
LoS_Dark Matter - This for me was one of the hardest maps to leave out of the top 5. First of all, it's beautiful - space station maps are hardly new but this one executes the theme perfectly. Just the right amount of detail without being cluttered, and the textures are similarly awesome. The map features a rather innovative main/nat setup, which most of the judges really liked, and was not the reason it was left out. Rather, we felt there was potential for positional imbalances in close positions regarding expanding. Essentially, the counter-clockwise player has to expand more aggressively when taking a third compared to the clockwise player. I think the map might also be a bit imba for T in close positions, though I think cross-positions on this map would be sick! I really liked this map, and would personally have loved to see it in the top 5, I hope one way or the other this isn't the last we see of it.
Heartstone Canyon - This is a good, solid map. The layout is quite good, but options for 4th bases are maybe a bit distant and the watchtowers could maybe be placed a bit better. The bases in general seem to be too clustered in the corners of the map. Aesthetically it's nice, Mar'Sara is hard to make pretty in my opinion but this map does a good job. I do however think that this map lacks either the aesthetic punch or creative flair necessary to make it a top 5 map, but it's a very good effort and shows a great deal of potential.
Shakuras Proving Grounds - The texture work on this map is beautiful, really nice. Visually the only thing I don't like about it is there's a few too many straight lines in the terrain, but that aside it's a nice looking map.The layout has a couple of problems with proportions (the middle is too open), cross positions might be a bit too long and the expo's seem a bit too condensed around the outside of the map. It's very clean though, and I like that, I'm looking forward to seeing another map by lawol.
Venti - This is a very good 3p map. The proportions are excellent, it's well balanced for a 3p and the expo layout is great. The texturing is quite nice, the map is quite clean, but it just feels empty and some of the doodads used don't really fit the theme. I know it's a desert map so it's supposed to be kind of empty, but it just feels too bland and lacking detail in general. It's a bit of a shame cause the layout is very good, a little more time spent on aesthetics and this could have been a contender for top 5.
Harmony - This is a pretty good map with some nice aesthetic touches. I'm not a massive fan of the Monolyth Bricks texture in general, but it's used really well here. There's a nice moody atmosphere to the map that works quite well. There might be a slight positional imbalance when taking a third, it's hard to say as I haven't seen enough games to determine just how those mineral blocks will work (similar to Damage Inc.). Also, the gold bases are very hard to take and only one gas makes it seem not worth it. I think if the gold base was reworked into a more viable standard expo this could be a really good map, pending the verdict on mineral blocked expo's.
Galactic HQ - This map is... perculiar, both technically and visually. I was quite skeptical as to what to think at first, but the more I look at it the more I like this map. The aesthetics are very clean and while there are some unusual elements like the LOSB's in the mains, they actually look awesome! The fog and night lighting make for a great atmosphere and the details in general are really nice. Reiterating my previous statements though, it's hard for us to include (significantly) asymmetrical maps because we simply don't have time to test them to the required extent for us to say it's competitively viable. I don't want to dissuade people from submitting asymmetric maps in the future but it's unlikely that one will make the top 5 (sorry ;x).
Embattled City - The general layout concept of this map is quite good. The placement of the expo's is fine and the proportions are pretty solid too though the ramps to middle expo's need to be bigger and the entrances to the third are a bit tight/awkward. However, the terrain is a quite uninspired with lots of straight lines and the texture's can definitely be improved. Aesthetically it's definitely not on the same level as the top maps this month, but don't let that deter you. You seem to have a lot of the basics when it comes to making a solid layout down, so if you concentrate on the visuals and terrain I think you're next map could be quite good.
Stepway - Again going to reiterate my previous comments regarding asymmetric maps, we just can't determine if they're balanced/ready for competetive or tournament play. This map has a few questionable things going on though; the proportions in some parts of the map are a bit too extreme (really tight highground on the right side of the map particularly, the rest is ok) and I don't know what's going on with all the cloud shadow doodads at the top of the map :D I can tell a decent amount of time was spent on textures, but they could still be improved I think. The general expo pattern is good though so I think there's definitely some potential here.
Master System - The rock textures and some of the details on this map are really nice (the big crystals and thing in the middle for example) but the tiled textures could be a bit better (though using the Ulnar Hull textures is really hard I will admit). However, the map's a bit oversized, and I think could benefit extremely well from being condensed a little bit. The proportions and general concept are very sound though, if nothing else it's a map that shows a lot of promise.
Hypnosis Bridge - I don't think we recieved the map file for this map, but from what I can see in the overview it looks quite experimental. I'm not too sure about the non-standard stuff, but the basic layout looks quite decent. However, I do think you should focus on your aesthetics for your next submission .
TPW Concrete Dreams - This map is a beauty to behold. The time spent on the details on this map just ooze straight back out of it, simply gorgeous. It's a shame it wasn't completely finished when it was submitted, but despite that it still nearly made the top 5. It's hard to really pick faults in this map, just overall a solid map with amazing aesthetics. I'm going to be honest and say one of the only reasons it was left out of the top 5 was because of what was said last month regarding 4p rotational maps.
OK, I think that's all of them, please let me know and I apologize in advance if I left one out!
Note: These are my thoughts and don't necessarily reflect the other judges' opinions.
With that said, I'd like to comment on what's been said here since the top 5 have been announced. First, regarding solid, proven concepts versus innovation and creativity; we have to tread a very fine line here. Starcraft 2 is still very young, and the metagame, viable strategies and such can all change at the tip of a hat. With that in mind, we have to be careful when it comes to innovative map concepts and introduce them slowly, a similar approach to how Blizzard patches the game.
We also (as judges) can't simply include maps for the sole reason that they are creative/innovative. We take everything into consideration when choosing the top 5, and maps do certainly get bonus points for doing things differently so long as it benefits the overall core concept of the map. If two maps are equal in balance and aesthetics, but one does something new that we think has the potential to work well, I'd like to think that map has a greater chance of making the top 5, but innovation for the sake of innovation just isn't necessary.
I think it's right that MotM chooses the 5 best maps submitted each month. "Best" is obviously completely subjective, but a good map doesn't have to be innovative, just as an innovative map isn't necessarily good. We're not trying to stifle creativity, but we have to be careful in how we reward it too. The fact that maps like TPW Concrete Dreams were left out mostly for being unoriginal (at least in the context of previous winners) I think should be a testament to the importance of creativity and fresh ideas in this competition.
Winning a MotM is somewhat of a double-edged sword in that well, winning is nice, but judging is... hard, to say the least. Making decisions that you know will break people's hearts, and in a lot of cases spell doom for potentially amazing maps is not an easy or pleasant thing to do. We don't choose TPW/ESV maps for any reason other than they are often the best submitted. That said, the general quality of the maps submitted this month was nothing short of amazing, and the gap between the best and the rest (if there even is such a thing) is ever-shrinking. So, don't give up hope, make a good map, and you'll stand a good chance of making it the top 5. But, at the end of the day only 5 can be chosen so it's inevitable some great maps will only just miss out.
For now, that concludes this epic post. I'll try and write some semi-official awards if I can but this post alone has taken literally days of my free time to write.
Oh and fenX, don't quit. At least come talk to me first, my PM inbox is always open (and that applies to everyone).
Thanks for reading.
Thank you for doing this and taking the time to actually look at every map and give feedback to the mappers.
The problem with making maps is you spend 20-30 hours making a map that nobody is ever going to play. Its just a shitty time when you see you didnt place, so you know nobody is ever going to see your map. =/.
Thanks guys, I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't quit because I didn't win MotM this month. I would've quit even if I made it to top5. And I made an asymetric map, I knew it wouldn't be selected, there's no way for the judges to tell if it's balanced or not (only playing a ton of games at high level would tell), as funcmode said the world is not ready for that. I spend more and more time on my maps, and with the general improvement of maps quality that's the amount of work required to reach the standards, for the last 6 months I've been making maps almost full time, and as a result stopped working on other projects that are by far more important for me (I'm making a web-based MMORPG), that's why I decided to stop mapmaking and go back to that project. Maybe I'll come back to mapmaking in a few months, but for now I need to stop because I have no self discipline and cannot manage my time, and I simply need to use my time for something else.
I'd love to do it like fenX and end my mapmaking career here and now. But I'm coming back anyway, even if I get more and more demotivated. Wasting time in the editor... fml
I'd really love to see TPW+NASL or someone else pick up Dark Matter, right now it seems it's the best map this month that we will never see played
Don't worry Ragoo about Dark Matter, the LoS team will be on the move to try to find tournaments where we have the chance of putting a few map in their map pool.
I'd really love to see TPW+NASL or someone else pick up Dark Matter, right now it seems it's the best map this month that we will never see played
Don't worry Ragoo about Dark Matter, the LoS team will be on the move to try to find tournaments where we have the chance of putting a few map in their map pool.
Btw do you already have plans what you want to do after MotM #11? Will it be one month with the previous top5 in the tournament + a special challenge again? And if so, could we get a challenge that promotes innovative maps that are then used by ESL for some showmatches? Just a thought.
I'd really love to see TPW+NASL or someone else pick up Dark Matter, right now it seems it's the best map this month that we will never see played
Don't worry Ragoo about Dark Matter, the LoS team will be on the move to try to find tournaments where we have the chance of putting a few map in their map pool.
That's a pretty big overreaction.......
Edit: I tell this to my mapmakers all the time, it's easy to always see you map as the best of a group, but in reality that's not always the case. Remember as a team member and even more so as a map designer there is a HUGE bias towards your own work, and rightfully so, you worked hard on it! In the end however you must realize that the people judging the maps may not see the things you see.
Ask Monitor, I've had this discussion like 40,000 times with him every time he finishes a new map and declares it 'the best map we have" (we being the ESV map team), and I have to bring him back to reality.
I personally think the layout of Concrete Dreams is nothing special :p But it is at least a very refined form of "standard", which I think is what makes it good. Neither is it "the best one" we (TPW) have layout-wise, I think, it is just a stable layout in general. So I kinda agree with the judges' choice to not put it in the top 5 (notwithstanding the unfinished state I sent it in), because the layout is kinda standard.
Still, you need a balanced layout in the top 5, which is hard to pull off with new concepts — so congratulations to all who made it into the top 5!
But the aesthetics is something else entirely, and looking at those I think Concrete Dreams is our best so far
"best" is weird anyway. best in what? for competitive play? from a mapmaking perspective? for fun? best 2player map? best for the way the game currently is played?
that's the way life is. up, down, top5, best runner up....
On September 15 2011 16:21 MaestroSC wrote: Thank you for doing this and taking the time to actually look at every map and give feedback to the mappers.
The problem with making maps is you spend 20-30 hours making a map that nobody is ever going to play. Its just a shitty time when you see you didnt place, so you know nobody is ever going to see your map. =/.
I know how you feel man, I think every map maker that's entered MotM has experienced that same feeling at least once. Don't feel bad though, cause while it may feel like a waste of time, it most certainly isn't. Every map is like a stepping stone, and you'll get better and better each step you take, so even if you're map isn't selected/played, you still improved yourself as a mapmaker.
@fenX, given that context, that's fair enough. GL in your other endeavours and I hope we see you back here sooner or later
@Ragoo, don't give up, you have a lot of potential, and I like you <3.
Above all, I think what's important is not for people to aspire to make top 5 in MotM, but rather to be a better mapmaker and make good maps. Over a year after SC2's release, even the best mapmakers (outside of korea) are only just starting to make a name for themselves. The fame and glory come later, good maps come first!
I've also added my thoughts on Hypnosis Bridge (really sorry I left that one out!) and Pyramus Outpost, they're at the end of "the rest" spoiler in my previous post.
On September 16 2011 01:46 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Ask Monitor, I've had this discussion like 40,000 times with him every time he finishes a new map and declares it 'the best map we have" (we being the ESV map team), and I have to bring him back to reality.
hahaha, it's so funny because it makes me think of the times when I talk with Monitor on skype.
"Sid, check out this new map I'm working on, it's probably THE BEST map I've ever made!!!" Monitor shows a picture of the layout. "Look how damn sweet this is!!! Is there any map that's better then this?!?!"
and I'm just sitting there resting my chin on my hand wondering wtf he is thinking.
... ... ...
okay, maybe I exaggerated a bit.
<3 Monitor, even though I haven't been around as much and therefore haven't made a new map in well over a month, you're still my goto guy when I want some map advice.
I'd really love to see TPW+NASL or someone else pick up Dark Matter, right now it seems it's the best map this month that we will never see played
Don't worry Ragoo about Dark Matter, the LoS team will be on the move to try to find tournaments where we have the chance of putting a few map in their map pool.
That's a pretty big overreaction.......
Edit: I tell this to my mapmakers all the time, it's easy to always see you map as the best of a group, but in reality that's not always the case. Remember as a team member and even more so as a map designer there is a HUGE bias towards your own work, and rightfully so, you worked hard on it! In the end however you must realize that the people judging the maps may not see the things you see.
Ask Monitor, I've had this discussion like 40,000 times with him every time he finishes a new map and declares it 'the best map we have" (we being the ESV map team), and I have to bring him back to reality.
Did you misread something? He didn't say it's the best map and neither did I in the quote. I said Dark Matter is the best map we will never see played cause the top5 will be played, the other TPW maps will be played in NASL and Taonas has a chance to be played in the Korean Weekly. So I'm not saying it's the best map overall^^ And I'm not a LoS member so I can't be biased about their maps
Hey guys! I won't deny that I get overexcited about each map I make and think its better than it is, and I bug Diamond far too much... but I don't think that being confident each map you make is the best you've made is a bad thing. That way you know you're improving as a mapmaker and you can see your progress.
Anyway... I've made some write-ups on a few of the maps. Right now just the top five winners and some of the controversial ones. I decided to not really to comment on aesthetics because that's mostly opinionated and I'm not sure I can offer great advice.
The proportions of this map are very similar to a Brood War map- the mains are pretty big compared to the rest of the map which is tight but sufficiently open for balance purposes. The contrast between chokes and open areas is a bit extreme, but it "raises the skill cap" for players meaning the player who has better positioning and faster response time can get the advantage in an engagement if his opponent doesn't play well.
As far as layout, I like how whoever takes their third first almost decides which way the map will be split- players will take their half of the map divided horizontally. Ten expansions is not very many considering there are two single-gas expansions, but I think it will play out alright since most are pretty easy to defend (easy wall-offs and chokes to abuse).
I love how the pathing moves through a very small choke when you click the opponent's base, but there are many alternative routes that only require slightly longer distances to get to open space. This will play out nicely because micro and map awareness will be crucial when spotting engagements and defending harass.
The expansion layout is very nice. Each third expansion offers two nice benefits and drawbacks- you can take the gold which spreads your army out and risks drop, or you can take the blue which is closer but doesn't provide high income. The closer third is right beneath a jutting piece of highground, which means controlling at least part of the center is required. I also like how each expansion leads to another, which ends in the map being split to five base per player (the perfect number in my opinion).
I'm not a big fan of how the natural is laid out, I would prefer if there was a single choke you could wall instead of just being able to wall from ramp to CC in the natural. The highground third is a nice option for cross positions, but I don't think it will be taken very often in vertical positions since it is so close to the opponent and pretty far from your natural compared to the lowground third. Essentially those expos and the golds are useless in vertical positions, which leaves about five bases (sometimes six) that players can take- a good number, but I dislike maps which incorporated useless expansions in certain positions.
That being said, this is a solid map with nice aesthetics, and that is why the other judges chose it.
The proportions on this map feel somewhat off to me, the main and natural are very small while the middle is gigantic. I think the middle should be slightly smaller and the main and natural should be enlarged. Maybe you could decrease the rush distance too, because right now its on the longer side and drops are somewhat difficult.
This is almost a Shakuras Plateau remake, with a few changes. Overall each change improves the map flow in my opinion, except the aggressive third is slightly too open. Adding extra paths in the north and south of the middle are nice to help the balance of ZvP (helping Zerg, where Protoss used to be overpowered).
I love how the middle of this map is nicely connected to each of the outer expansions- it has nice army positioning and troop movement. In general I think the first three or four expansions are laid out very well, but the fifth and sixth (corner expansions) are a little bit too close to the third and fourth, which seems to encourage turtling and mass expanding slightly too much in my opinion.
I think if you altered the corners so the map only had ten bases (five per player) it could play out a lot better. Good work though, it's cool to see a custom texture even though I'm not sure I like it.
I'm not a fan of how the natural is set-up- I would prefer a choke wall-off in addition to the ramp to CC, but it isn't a huge deal.
The biggest problem I have with the map is the expansion layout. Taking a lowground third is the easiest option since it is the closest and farthest from the opponent, but it doesn't lead into another expansion. The golds are too close together to be split and the fourth to the right is really pushing into the opponent's territory, which is very realistic to take in most games- even if you do though, you can't take a fifth unless the opponent has vacated his main and natural already (and hasn't taken a gold). So overall I don't think the map split is very good (well thought out, just not quite correctly executed) and having twelve full expansions in such a small map is kind of oversatured.
I would love to see a remake of this map where the map could be split in different ways with each expansion leading to a new one and having each expo viable to take in each possible map split.
I will add more when I get more time to write. Hope it helps!
Thanks for the feedback Moniter, I'm going to refine Cold Snap first (by making it smaller than the gigantic piece of ice it was before) then I might just refine Flamestrike a bit further Maybe I could spread the golds further apart (pushing them towards the thirds a bit) and turning them into blues. We shall see!
Okay, I am finishing my write-ups. The top 5 + Flamestrike can be found above. Sorry that not every single map is included, I tried to write about most things that I feel are important to communicate to the author. If your map is not written about, please don't hesitate to PM if you would like me to write about the map you entered. Or you can just try to learn from some of the other write-ups.
Very nice main and natural layout, the use of rocks is pretty clever. I've learned to like the fact that pylons can harass in from the highground, its pretty cool since protoss has been "lacking harass" recently. The highground third is pretty easy to defend once you break the rocks, and leads nicely into the fourth into the center. The problem comes up at this point- you can double back and take the fifth against your main, but it is really too close to the opponents fourth to be realist to hold. Additionally having to go backwards to expand is kind of annoying and not good map flow, because each expansion should lead naturally into the next one. However if you try to take the fifth next to the opponent's main, its going to be too close to your opponent and you have to move your army through the tiny ramp if you can't go through the middle.
Additionally, there is an almost useless piece of terrain between the highground third and the fourth, which is just kind of sloppy map design. That being said, I can tell there was a lot of thought put into the map and aesthetics, and it turned out very well. Just a couple problems with the design and concept.
The natural's backdoor is pretty annoying since there isn't highground to defend it with, and it's so close for the defender to break down if you wall your front. But overall the main and natural are nicely laid out and well sized.
The primary problem is that if you expand to the close third then fourth, you really can't take a very easy fifth except the gold, which is really out of the way and is very hard to hold since it is so close to your opponent/tower and it's very open. The map will probably play out very well, just has a some oddly distanced expansions that make a lot of scenarios hard to take bases and potentially imbalanced.
Cool ideas with the forced cross. I like how it is two maps combined into one. This could be one of the best maps I've seen with just some slight layout and balance adjustments.
The primary problem in the bottom left and top right spawn positions is the lack of a ramp at main or natural and the cluster of six bases. Having no ramp makes PvP a nightmare, and also messes up static defense, forcefields, and long range units in all of the other MU's- making the natural unusually hard to hold in most circumstances. All of the six bases are so closely packed together and easy to defend that turtling and/or mass expanding is a little bit too powerful and potentially imbalanced.
In the top left and bottom right spawn positions, the main issue is the natural and the clustered six bases (same as the other position). The natural's mineral block really just serves as an annoyance to take down when you try to take a defensive third, and can also be exploited very easily by the attacker with tanks pushes, blink, and any other common aggression.
Great work, the overall layout and concept is very nice. The expansions are placed well too. The primary problem with the map is that there isn't an obvious or easy to defend third- you have to break rocks to take the gold, break rocks to take the defensive third, or take the very aggressive highground third that is pretty far away. The top right and bottom left are a little bit too choked, and also don't offer enough options for pathing when choosing your engagements or harassing.
Cool ideas with the LoS blockers, just the map is too big. The middle is very oversized, and the bottom expansions are huge especially the very bottom middle expo. Could be a great map if it is remade to be smaller in my opinion.
The natural is very awkward to hold since you can't wall from ramp-CC or a choke walloff. This will be extremely imbalanced in all match ups.
The only other problem is that the third in vertical and horizontal positions is slightly too far- the lowground expansion is so hard to hold because of its positioning and distance from the natural plus is not ideal to reinforce for the defender, and the gold requires breaking rocks and spreading yourself out slightly too much for 2 or 3 bases.
With just a few adjustments, this could be a very good map. Great attention to balancing each spawn location, I can tell a lot of thought went into its design and balance. You have a good sense for mapmaking, keep working at it!
I love seeing this asymmetrical map. It's really unique and clearly a lot of careful work designing it. There are a few concerns I have with it:
-cluster of expansions in the bottom left are too turtley -bottom cannot be split in top left vs. top right -really choked and limited pathing in the top right
I think the conceptual problem is that you were trying to make each spawn position have the same potential for taking expansions, using chokes, etc. But in my opinion if you want to do this, you should have used symmetry. The best use for an asymmetrical map to me is to do very drastic differences in each spawn location- maybe one main is lowground, one person gets a gold third, etc. but balancing it (the real challange).
Great work balancing the map, I can tell there have been many tests and adjustments to refine the it. In my opinion, it will be very even for all the races, except it is a little bit too far to take a fourth when you are expanding through your backdoor.
Now, part of mapmaking is balance and albeit a big one, but another major factor is the concept. The concept is how you design the map's gameplay, and what you are encouraging/discouraging. All of the greatest and notable brood war maps had definitive concepts- blue storm (tons of pathing options, large army movement around the center, etc.), katrina (expansions and main/natural layout encouraging using air), etc. I would love to see you use your balance and layout skill to develop the concept for you future maps- decide what makes the map "unique" from any other standard melee map.
As an extra note that I need to mention, having 10-12 (12 if two are mineral only or 1-gas) expansions in a two player map is plenty with a good design. Fourteen is far too many especially when every one of them is a full expo. It is best to design a concept so that every expo counts in every possible situation, so you don't have useless expansions or unnecessary turtling on clumped up bases.
Cool ideas, each of your maps have really been improving. I'm very impressed, keep at it! There are only a few issues with this map that brought it down:
-Extreme positional imbalance; if you spawn clockwise to the opponent, you can expand defensively meaning the rush distance becomes longer for the opponent to attack you as you take bases. If you spawn counterclockwise, you are forced to expand very aggressively meaning that the rush distance becomes much shorter for the opponent to attack you as your expand. This means there is a lot of potential for imbalance in all match upss.
-The middle four expansions are not the best design and are somewhat unreasonable to split between players. The problem is that they are very close to one and other, don't have any highground chokes to use defensively (see: TPW Concrete Dreams to see what I'm talking about), and controlling the middle watch tower means you control nearly the whole map and the opponent can only hold his expansion if it is a dead even game.
-Awkward main and natural setup, with no clear area to put production buildings. Not a huge issue, but putting buildings in the natural is kind of strange since they have to rally down the ramp and around to the main's choke. There isn't really enough room to put very many structures (mostly important in the late-game) on the small highground overlooking the fourth.
-Finally, I think the main-main distance is a little bit too long in cross positions since you have a free inbase expo. These positions will probably be ridiculously turtly because of the basically "free" three bases and easy fourth/fifth/sixth/seventh.
One funny problem I see is that it is easier to hold three bases than it is to hold two bases in all positions except horizontal, and maybe even then. I never like free expansions because it just makes turtling too easy and doesn't make for very good or skilled games.
Another major problem is that taking a fourth is nearly impossible unless you're already way ahead because you have to spread your army out a lot to defend it. This will likely lead to extreme imbalance in many matchups.
Also the middle is really too open, it is extremely hard to push out in vertical and cross positions without risking a complete surround or counterattack. I'd like to see some more chokes in the middle and sides for Protoss and Terran to abuse.
I like it that you can wall from ramp --> CC in the natural, but I would also prefer that you could wall a single choke instead of two wide ones. It won't affect balance very much, but its just my preference.
Good work with the expansion layout, the rocks are very clever at the third expecially. I like the options for expanding, seems nicely balanced. My only concern is that the gold would be pretty powerful to put a gold at and get map control.
Some of the primary reasons this map wasn't chosen for top 5:
-very far distances throughout the map and between certain expansions -tons of wasted space on the sides -boring and bland textures/doodads throughout the map, and poor map borders -clustered three bases a little bit too turtly (gold, third, and fourth) -lack of a solid concept and gameplay focus, see Nightmare Hollow for some more details -lack of natural highground pod for overlords (not a big deal, also lacking on TPW maps)
With this being said, I love the work you've been doing on this map and Shurik'n and I really think you're getting to be a great mapmaker. Keep at it!
Good main and natural layout, but I think the main is a tad bit on the too-small side. I would like it to be enlarged before it is used in competitive play. There isn't much space to build enough production facilities comfortably on 1-2 bases when you're terran or protoss.
I'm not a fan of the almost-free third bases, they're just going to encourage turtling. I think a good solution would be to remove the rocks- the rush distance will be fine, the natural will still be fine, and the map flow will be a lot nicer with more pathing options.
The middle expansions are a little bit too close for my taste, but they'll probably play out okay. Unfortunately its kind of another of the standard four-player rotational maps.
Again, I hope this helps the mapmakers. Thanks for participating everybody!
Thanks as well for the epic post monitor. I can see how to adjust my map, in particular, to make it something much better, and perhaps I shall soon. It is one of my personal fav's, because of how I managed to make it look, and I'd like to be satisfied with its balance as well.
It really feels like we all sort of won already, doesn't it? Lots of good commentary, really. This has been a really big MotM I think.
I just wanted to say my opinion on some of the things that have been said here. First off, if you are mapping only to win competitions and get into tournaments and not for the fun making the maps themselves map making isn't probably for you. Also you shouldn't feel bad if you spent a lot of time in the editor making a map that turned out bad because if you enjoyed making it, you can always just move on and learn from your mistakes. Personally I tried mapping and stopped because although I loved the designing the maps, coming up with expansion patterns, seeing how thing interact within the balance of the game ect. I didn't actually like making the maps themselves and doing the aesthetics which is what takes up most of the time. (If any team ever wants someone to help out with design, come up with ideas, help perfect maps ect. I would be more than willing to dedicate a lot of my time to really learn the game and map design and help out.) So I guess my point is mapping should be fun and if its not.
The other thing I wanted to say is that good tournament quality maps is hard. Starcraft is such a complex game there are so many little things in designing a map that can make a big difference in how game play works. Most people including myself don't have enough knowledge of the game and mapping to design a map that would be competitive in an MLG or GSL (but I'm not saying you can't learn and reach that level.) You shouldn't expect that just because your map looks good to you and was balanced in all of you test games its should immediately be in every tournament. There easily could be things that make a big difference that you overlook or something you don't know about that ends up being important in very high level play.
Sorry for the grammar errors, my bad writing, jumping between thoughts, if I made any bad points, and for the self promotion in the middle. I will probably make a bunch of additions as more things pop into my mind too.
On September 17 2011 13:59 AaronJ wrote: I just wanted to say my opinion on some of the things that have been said here. First off, if you are mapping only to win competitions and get into tournaments and not for the fun making the maps themselves map making isn't probably for you. Also you shouldn't feel bad if you spent a lot of time in the editor making a map that turned out bad because if you enjoyed making it, you can always just move on and learn from your mistakes. Personally I tried mapping and stopped because although I loved the designing the maps, coming up with expansion patterns, seeing how thing interact within the balance of the game ect. I didn't actually like making the maps themselves and doing the aesthetics which is what takes up most of the time. (If any team ever wants someone to help out with design, come up with ideas, help perfect maps ect. I would be more than willing to dedicate a lot of my time to really learn the game and map design and help out.) So I guess my point is mapping should be fun and if its not.
The other thing I wanted to say is that good tournament quality maps is hard. Starcraft is such a complex game there are so many little things in designing a map that can make a big difference in how game play works. Most people including myself don't have enough knowledge of the game and mapping to design a map that would be competitive in an MLG or GSL (but I'm not saying you can't learn and reach that level.) You shouldn't expect that just because your map looks good to you and was balanced in all of you test games its should immediately be in every tournament. There easily could be things that make a big difference that you overlook or something you don't know about that ends up being important in very high level play.
Sorry for the grammar errors, my bad writing, jumping between thoughts, if I made any bad points, and for the self promotion in the middle. I will probably make a bunch of additions as more things pop into my mind too.
This man gets it. More on this stuff soon!
Thanks so much I probably will post again later when I have more time. I might also like start a blog or something.
On September 17 2011 13:59 AaronJ wrote: I just wanted to say my opinion on some of the things that have been said here. First off, if you are mapping only to win competitions and get into tournaments and not for the fun making the maps themselves map making isn't probably for you. Also you shouldn't feel bad if you spent a lot of time in the editor making a map that turned out bad because if you enjoyed making it, you can always just move on and learn from your mistakes. Personally I tried mapping and stopped because although I loved the designing the maps, coming up with expansion patterns, seeing how thing interact within the balance of the game ect. I didn't actually like making the maps themselves and doing the aesthetics which is what takes up most of the time. (If any team ever wants someone to help out with design, come up with ideas, help perfect maps ect. I would be more than willing to dedicate a lot of my time to really learn the game and map design and help out.) So I guess my point is mapping should be fun and if its not.
The other thing I wanted to say is that good tournament quality maps is hard. Starcraft is such a complex game there are so many little things in designing a map that can make a big difference in how game play works. Most people including myself don't have enough knowledge of the game and mapping to design a map that would be competitive in an MLG or GSL (but I'm not saying you can't learn and reach that level.) You shouldn't expect that just because your map looks good to you and was balanced in all of you test games its should immediately be in every tournament. There easily could be things that make a big difference that you overlook or something you don't know about that ends up being important in very high level play.
Sorry for the grammar errors, my bad writing, jumping between thoughts, if I made any bad points, and for the self promotion in the middle. I will probably make a bunch of additions as more things pop into my mind too.
This man gets it. More on this stuff soon!
Thanks so much I probably will post again later when I have more time. I might also like start a blog or something.
I definitely agree, Aaron is completely right with what he said. I was considering saying exactly what you said at making maps to get into tournaments instead of actually enjoying making maps and playing them.
Some map makers might wonder "how do I learn from my mistakes?" Do what I do: take all your maps (go through all your map threads) and take out the common mistakes that people keep bringing up. If people comment on 2 or more of your maps that you are following a bad pattern (whether it's a particular expansion layout, proportion issues, textures etc), then you should take just that piece of criticism and learn from it.
For example, my maps Bel'Shir Walkway, TPW Antiga Prime, TPW Scars of Aiur, and TPW Ohana all had 2 common complaints altogether:
1) to STOP putting the mains in the top left and bottom right (lol a bad habit of mine). 2) to make the 4th/5th bases more easily accessible and not so close to the enemy's main.
Out of every map criticism I've had over all my maps, i've taken these two core criticisms (that were the most commonly said) and currently I am working on a map and avoiding these two things. This is how you internally improve on your map-making skills.
The other thing is that just because a master player says something is imbalanced does not mean you have to suddenly change it! I used to fall into this trap because I thought masters knew everything, but then the next few master players that tested my maps said it was perfectly fine.
You will never become a better map-maker by giving yourself ideas. You must be open to harsh comments and real constructive feedback.
Oh, I have to agree with Aaron. Mapmaking is something I do solely for fun. Apart from the fact I just plain love messing with a game's system and seeing what I can do with it, I love the challenge mapmaking provides. Finding a way to get something special out of a texture set, making a shape or design work out as something that's reasonably balanced, or finding a way to solve an imbalance without breaking the overall flavour or game flow of the map.
I never enter a MotM expecting to Top5 (although I'll still love my maps in a way only a mother could), knowing that other people have spent more time, solved bigger problems and worked with partners and teammates to produce something really special. I'm just happy to see the detailed feedback that comes after a judging session, to see what I've done well at that month.
I started off as a really bad mapper, but I'd like to think I've made a lot of progress.
Thanks for the writeups on the maps. As much as I am trying to deny imbalance on Dark Matter I am working on an update that will adress the issues of possible imbalances.
On September 18 2011 04:59 Barrin wrote: I started writing this several days ago, but then I got the worst cold I've ever had (didn't even touch computer for a day and a half). That's also why my write-ups are late (posting today or tomorrow).
If you are one of the people disappointed with MotM9, you are required to read this post before expressing anymore disappointment in this thread ^_^ (not really, but yeah).
I want everyone to know that we are certainly listening to and understanding your concerns. I know full well the frustration of having a map you spent countless hours on being denied a MotM finalist position (which almost invariably leads to it being never used again).
Identifying possible problems is a good thing... but at one point in this thread it moved past the “identifying possible problems” boundary and more into “complaining/whining”. Perhaps we should discuss potential solutions to the possible problems; maybe simply asking for further clarification (now and in the future, and I'm happy to say that some of you are doing/did so) instead of complaining and defaming.
As an aside, there is this thing I like to call "mapmaking progression philosophy". I've been meaning to make a thread for it for a loong time, but it really is little more than this: I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A) improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B) taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map. Interestingly enough this same concept can be (and is) applied to "player progression philosophy" as well. It is a well known theory that given a long enough timeframe, the player who chooses to focus on early aggression/cheesing almost every game (strategy b) is going to eventually be an overall worse player than the person who focuses on improving their late-game mechanics and surviving the early game (strategy A). + Show Spoiler +
(disclaimer: at least in mapmaking, Strategy A and B are not mutually exclusive (indeed it makes sense to do B while doing A); it is the degrees of focus on either one that I am addressing.)
If you don't consider yourself very experienced in mapmaking (2+ years; yes, into the BW days), and if you're not learning a lot from almost every map you make, then you're probably doing it wrong (probably not receiving/comprehending enough feedback - put yourself out there - do not be afraid to be wrong, be afraid of being wrong and never realizing it).
The first issue I wish to address is the idea that MotM tends to choose maps that are "standard".
Well, what is standard exactly? Is there any single map we can point to and say "that's the standard!"?
No. That doesn't make sense because there are many different categories of maps. However for some of these categories we do have at least one map to look to as a standard.
For clarity, each of these categories has varying degrees of [# of bases], [# of spawn positions], [symmetry type], [map size], and if you wanna get down to it [difficulty of expanding to & holding natural], [difficulty of expanding to and holding third], [optional thirds], and [level of air space around map]... (you can go on for a long ass time categorizing differences IMO, but these are the true major ones).
map size: small [100x100 to 115x115 OR 110x90 to 120x100]; medium [130x110 to 150x130 OR 120x120 to 140x140]; large [150x150 to 180x180]
sub categories:
difficulty of expanding to & holding natural: openness, length, number (any blocked off?), breadth of chokes (and their distance from CC), main cliffability, ramp. ((easy/medium/hard))
difficulty of expanding to & holding third: distance from nat entrance, attack entrance(s) distance(s) from nat entrance (and their openness, length, number, breadth of chokes. ((easy/medium/hard))
optional thirds: how many? what are their different characteristics? ((no, 2, 3))
level of air space around map: low; medium (or scattered), high
------------
If you take all the possible combinations with just these major features, that's 37,908 different combinations for categories of maps (20,412 if you only count # of bases from 10 to 16)... these numbers double every time you add a variable with 2 possible values (and I could do that sensibly, with fairly major things like close air positions or backdoor into main, possibility of gold expansionl, whether or not there are XWT's, square or rectangle, and others).
Well, you wouldn't really want a 2player, 10base map that's the size of Tal'Darim Altar. So most of those combinations don't really make sense. However, I would say that there's easily a few hundred that do, and of those maybe 50 or so that have been done fairly well (many, maybe most, haven't even been tried).
So. There is a "standard" for some of these combinations.
The standard for a medium-sized, 2-player, 10-base, rotational symmetry map with hard to take/hold natural, hard to take/hold third(s), 2 optional thirds, and low level of air space around the map is... + Show Spoiler +
Xel'Naga Caverns
How about the standard for a medium/large, 4(3) player, 14-base, reflection (insignificant shift) symmetry map with easy to take/hold natural, easy to take/hold thirds, (sorta) 2 optional thirds, and fairly low level of air space around the map? + Show Spoiler +
Shakuras Plateau
Or how about the standard for a medium, 4 player, 16-base, rotational symmetry map with fairly easy to take/hold natural, medium to take/hold thirds, 2 optional thirds, and a medium (scattered) level of air space around the map? + Show Spoiler +
Artifice and some of the maps quite like it
IMO, there aren't very many other standards that are "standard" on the same level as these (there are varying levels of "standard" IMO). Maybe Tal'darim Altar is a standard for huge maps because it's like the only one. There are two more that I will get to soon.*
Now it gets really fun, because each CATEGORY has multiple STYLES. That is, category deals with spawn count, base count, symmetry type, map size, nat difficulty, third difficulty, optional thirds, level of air space around map, etc. Style gets even more specific (and ambiguous) and deals with terrain/cliff structures, openness distribution (and how it falls into pathing/army positioning gameplay), base vulnerabilities, and that sort of thing.
I'm probably speaking for all the judges (and probably most progamers too) when I say we care more about varied style than varied category (which is why this "We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!" is rather misleading and deserves(d) clarification).
An important concept to understand here is something I harped on a lot almost a year ago. In fact I promised (probably more than once) that I would make a [D] thread on it, but I never did. The concept goes something like this: each dot of terrain means something and has the potential to have an affect on the game itself (even if it has miniscule potential to have an affect on the actual outcome of the game).
Another thing to understand here is that things matter more in the early game. In other words, early game terrain has a bigger effect on more games played than late game terrain (probably all games, tbh). The earlier in the game it is used, the more it matters.
A less than ideal example is Main Chokes in PvP. It doesn't really get any more early game than your main choke. If the main choke is flat instead of a ramp (los blockers and high ground next to it aside), all of the sudden the entire PvP matchup is broken because of one small piece of terrain.
A simple overlord pod where there wasn't one can mean the difference between the zerg seeing an army coming across a path in time to move his army to defend the target base or not seeing it at all and half the workers and the hatchery at the target base dying.
A little bit of air space behind a main can mean the difference between a full octodrop (or two) at the ~10 minute mark being picked off by stalkers or not.
There are many timing attacks that can either be very effective or completely useless against an enemy natural ramp depending on if the ramp is 2 blocks wide or 3 blocks wide.
A single tile of pathable terrain can mean the difference between whether or not a the mineral line (or gas geyser) at a nat or third base is siegable.
There are countless more less significant examples. But all of these can have very significant affects on games... and we're only talking about very small pieces of terrain!
-----
You guessed it: medium sized pieces of terrain can have an even bigger impact.
Move a third base a whole 8x8 square (diagonally) and you can "tuck" almost "behind" your natural entrance (depending on positioning). This can mean the difference between very macro oriented games or games that tend to stay on 2-bases significantly longer.
Give a gold base a tight choke instead of an open one and all of the sudden Terran reigns supreme.
Make a main base small (23 CC)'s instead of medium (30 CC's) and T's and P's QQ all day that they don't have enough room to build, and arguably more importantly it becomes MUCH easier to scout (giving information that is acted upon instead of remaining unknown).
There are hundreds (probably thousands) of examples like this, many of which we haven’t even found yet.
Can you think of any two maps that have been in the ladder pool that have very similar categories but significantly different styles? Think for a minute; if you can't come up with something, you have no place to call overgrown and emerald jungle too similar to shakuras plateau.
Of course I am speaking of Shattered Temple and Metalopolis. Categorically wise, they are almost identical:
Shattered Temple: 4(3) spawns 12 bases medium size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2+ optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
Metalopolis: 4(3) spawns 12 bases medium size reflection symmetry medium natural medium third(s) 2+ optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
Yet somehow they manage to have relatively different styles. This is even a suboptimal example of how drastically different styles can be (its easy to relate to though).
*These two maps are indeed the "standard" for their categories.
Alright, now let's take a close look at the two maps people are saying is too much like Shakuras.
Shakuras (156x128): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2 optional thirds low air space around map
Overgrown (158x137): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size* reflection symmetry easy natural hard third(s) 2 optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
In the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras.
The categories are almost the same, can't deny that.
Aside from basic base layout, the style is actually quite different.
Take a close look at the naturals. The differences actually have a significant effect on the early game, which in turn makes a profound effect on the mid and late game.
Think about trying to take a third on shakuras, then think about trying to take a third on overgrown. That's right; it's a lot harder to do it on overgrown. One of the thirds is VERY open. The other third is kinda far away from the open third, which in combination with the openness of the other third, makes it hard to hold both of them. Unlike Shakuras, the third you take on overgrown kind of funnels you in to one of two (very different) expansion patterns.
There is also a hell of a lot more pathing options on Overgrown than on Shakuras. The "central width" of Shakuras is very small in relation to it's size, which (if you ask any pro player) is one of it's biggest defining features. This is a huge point, but it's hard to explain it's profound impact on the mid-late and late game (comes with experience).
Again, in the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras. However, it's almost as unlike Shakuras as it could possibly be while still being mostly like Shakuras.
Shakuras (156x128): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2 optional thirds low air space around map
Emerald Jungle (158x152): 4(3) spawns 16 bases large size reflection symmetry medium natural easy third + hard third 2 optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
The categories are in the same ballpark. Significantly different, however. Emerald Jungle is hardly even a rectangle (shakuras is VERY rectangular, part of why it has a small central width).
Holy fuck the style is soooo different. I'm seriously about to noobslap anyone who thinks otherwise. TWICE if you have to look any farther than the basic base layout in combination with the pathing to see it.
I dare you to show me why I'm wrong.
You say they're too much like Shakuras? I say you look too much at the category, and not nearly enough at the style.
While we're looking at specific maps, let's take a look at Tenarsis.
Some of you are saying this map is too standard. Tell me, which "standardish" map does this map resemble...? Take your time.
That's right. There is none (actually it does kinda remind me of my next still-private map >.<, but that's besides the point).
What you really mean is that it uses a bunch of MINOR, non-unique map features and tries to put a new spin on them (and spinning it does).
Quite frankly I've never seen a map with the same midgame layout as this one, or even close to it. The area outside of the natural is fairly unique (please prove otherwise).
Someone specified that the fact that there is optional thirds is one reason why this map isn't unique. I've never seen an optional thirds layout quite like this one (especially considering the fairly small (not too small..) natural rush distances.
I love how you can place your army at the gold and simultaneously soundly defend the two bases behind it (but leaving your natural adequately vulnerable). This isn't entirely new, but in the context of the whole map it is.
And you see, that's the thing. It's not only about individual map features. It's also how those individual map features interact with the rest of the map... Everything in a game like SC2 is connected; you can't say you know everything about something without also knowing the entire context that it takes place in. Indeed, as the context (map) changes, so does the concept (feature).+ Show Spoiler +
This is how you can talk to someone about some concept in SC2 that you both can identify and understand, but the fact that you have more context to refer to means that they won't really understand it the same way you do. We run into this constantly in judge discussions. I personally run into this all the time when trying to explain things to people.
And by the way, if it's recognition for your good work you seek, then it doesn't really help you if few other people can fully appreciate the depth of your work. I wont lie, this is actually a main reason why I used to be very vocal in this community... What was the point of making badass maps if I'm the only one who understands why they're badass? (disclaimer: I never actually made a badass map, but if I did...!)
What I'm saying is that you can take old ""standard"" features and do something new and creative with them. This is not the only way to be creative, but it is a huge part of it. How ridiculous would it be if you made a map with only 100% new features anyway (if that's even possible)?
(By the way there are sorta different levels of "features". So far I meant only individual features (example: double ramp main on scrap station). You can categorize them further and have a series of connected individual features (I will call these "structures"). You should always make sure that each individual feature actually fits in to the overall concept of a map (there's probably more overall concepts than individual features).)
Nobody is claiming that Bardiche and/or Derelict are standard-ish (especially Bardiche), right? *raises ban hammer*loljk* Seriously though. They're not - at all.
Unique != Good.
I'll be honest. I am aware that there is more to the feeling of "standard" that I have yet to acknowledge in this post. There is something that is done quite properly in pretty much every non-blizzard map that made it to the bigger 1v1 tournaments.
I can't speak for the rest of the judges, but personally I put A LOT of weight on this. Three words:
Army. Positioning. Gameplay.
Some of you probably remember my [D] Base Vulnerabilities thread. Army Positioning Gameplay is the other half of that story.
I am definitely going to make a [D] thread on Army Positioning Gameplay soon enough (I've been thinking about it specifically for several months now, making sure I get it down).
Army Positioning Gameplay is an extremely important concept at the highest of levels. Army Positioning Gameplay is akin to Micro; it is like Micro's bigger brother.
It is not easy at all to make a map with very good Army Positioning Gameplay while simultaneously being very unique AND balanced. It's downright fucking hard, actually. It is an art.
This topic deserves it's own thread (don't worry I'll make it), so I don't wanna get too detailed here. For now I think it's sufficient to say that two things in particular cause bad Army Positioning Gameplay.
(1) Too much restriction in pathing. This is usually caused by multiple LONG cliffs or unpathable space (long as in no breaks). It can make engagements too predictable, and it can allow you to always engage exactly where you want in a defensive posture. Boring, lowers skill ceiling.
(2) Too little restriction in pathing. For the most part, having every pathway and every base pathing-connected to every pathway and every base next to it is, you guessed it: boring. When you have too much freedom in pathing, you're not risking enough when you move your army around; you cannot be as easily be punished for your mistakes and in turn cannot as easily punish people for their mistakes. There must be suspense (that's a very basic way of putting it). Also, pathing restriction is one of your biggest tools for making your map unique and interesting.
Of course, armies don't just run all around the map trying to find the most efficient choke points to engage in. Armies defend bases, and armies attack bases (and other armies). Mostly defend actually. Which means they usually must remain in reasonably close proximity to the base(s) they are trying to protect (unless they're attacking o.O). But the best place to defend your natural often shouldn't be the best place to defend both your natural and your third, etc. And it should occasionally make sense to move your army away from this position (for a variety of reasons).
Many (if not most) of the maps submitted this month that are "unique" and "non-standard" have pretty sub-par Army Positioning Gameplay. IMO, at least.
I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A) improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B) taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map.
Great post. The only thing I wanted to say about your's and monitor's post is that as a novice map mapmaker (when I tried map making) it was almost impossible to actually learn from my mistakes and improve next time.With very little information out there and sometimes no good feedback as there are very little people who actually truly understand mapping it is hard to actually learn from mistakes other than the most basic ones you had in your map. Its also very hard to test your map with high level players to see how it plays out and find imbalances that way. Finally I feel that posts in map threads are often unreliable since sometimes (and I have been guilty of this ) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word)
On September 18 2011 06:20 AaronJ wrote: Great post. The only thing I wanted to say about your's and monitor's post is that as a novice map mapmaker (when I tried map making) it was almost impossible to actually learn from my mistakes and improve next time.With very little information out there and sometimes no good feedback as there are very little people who actually truly understand mapping it is hard to actually learn from mistakes other than the most basic ones you had in your map. Its also very hard to test your map with high level players to see how it plays out and find imbalances that way. Finally I feel that posts in map threads are often unreliable since sometimes (and I have been guilty of this ) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word)
Good idea! Unfortunately the strategy forum is more popular than the custom maps forum, but I suppose this could be on a smaller scale.
On September 18 2011 04:59 Barrin wrote: I can't speak for the rest of the judges, but personally I put A LOT of weight on this. Three words:
Army. Positioning. Gameplay.
Some of you probably remember my [D] Base Vulnerabilities thread. Army Positioning Gameplay is the other half of that story.
I am definitely going to make a [D] thread on Army Positioning Gameplay soon enough (I've been thinking about it specifically for several months now, making sure I get it down).
Army Positioning Gameplay is an extremely important concept at the highest of levels. Army Positioning Gameplay is akin to Micro; it is like Micro's bigger brother.
It is not easy at all to make a map with very good Army Positioning Gameplay while simultaneously being very unique AND balanced. It's downright fucking hard, actually. It is an art.
This topic deserves it's own thread (don't worry I'll make it), so I don't wanna get too detailed here. For now I think it's sufficient to say that two things in particular cause bad Army Positioning Gameplay.
(1) Too much restriction in pathing. This is usually caused by multiple LONG cliffs or unpathable space (long as in no breaks). It can make engagements too predictable, and it can allow you to always engage exactly where you want in a defensive posture. Boring, lowers skill ceiling.
(2) Too little restriction in pathing. For the most part, having every pathway and every base pathing-connected to every pathway and every base next to it is, you guessed it: boring. When you have too much freedom in pathing, you're not risking enough when you move your army around; you cannot be as easily be punished for your mistakes and in turn cannot as easily punish people for their mistakes. There must be suspense (that's a very basic way of putting it). Also, pathing restriction is one of your biggest tools for making your map unique and interesting.
Of course, armies don't just run all around the map trying to find the most efficient choke points to engage in. Armies defend bases, and armies attack bases (and other armies). Mostly defend actually. Which means they usually must remain in reasonably close proximity to the base(s) they are trying to protect (unless they're attacking o.O). But the best place to defend your natural often shouldn't be the best place to defend both your natural and your third, etc. And it should occasionally make sense to move your army away from this position (for a variety of reasons). - Barrin
I dont really think I agree with this part. I mean as long as the map is balanced, I cant find a reason how can a map be bad because of too many paths or too few (aslong as the map isnt just a straight 1 path line obv.) I have never spectated or played a game a game and tought that it would be way less boring if there were less or more restriction in pathing. I really much see the pathing restriction as a map style or prefer. Could just be me not understanding and raging for nothing.
Oh, btw, speaking of raging. Have you, iGork or who ever decides that shit, yet made the decisions about the specifcs of the next months map restrictions as frequently asked in this topic. Are we allowed to have custom color or propotions on doodaas? Are we allowed to mix the existing texture sets. Seriously, next MOTM should start in like 15 days.
On September 18 2011 06:20 AaronJ wrote: Great post. The only thing I wanted to say about your's and monitor's post is that as a novice map mapmaker (when I tried map making) it was almost impossible to actually learn from my mistakes and improve next time.With very little information out there and sometimes no good feedback as there are very little people who actually truly understand mapping it is hard to actually learn from mistakes other than the most basic ones you had in your map. Its also very hard to test your map with high level players to see how it plays out and find imbalances that way. Finally I feel that posts in map threads are often unreliable since sometimes (and I have been guilty of this ) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word)
I also agree that blue posts would make a lot of sense here too. I'd also love to see the experienced mappers post in map threads more too, I didn't get a whole lot of love back when I put mine up, though I don't hold it against them for not doing it as a lot of them are pretty busy with stuff like motm and their own maps after all.
Great post. The only thing I wanted to say about your's and monitor's post is that as a novice map mapmaker (when I tried map making) it was almost impossible to actually learn from my mistakes and improve next time.With very little information out there and sometimes no good feedback as there are very little people who actually truly understand mapping it is hard to actually learn from mistakes other than the most basic ones you had in your map. Its also very hard to test your map with high level players to see how it plays out and find imbalances that way. Finally I feel that posts in map threads are often unreliable since sometimes (and I have been guilty of this ) people who don't know what they are talking about comment. I would love to see the map thread start to look like the stratagy thread where you had to have valid reasoning behind a suggestion and great mappers have a blue backround (or something similar).(I don't know how hard it would be to implement stuff though). All in all I think the mapping thread would be a lot better place if experienced map makers would really try to teach and mentor newer map makers (by making guides, commenting in map threads with more detail ect.) and maybe in the future the people who were helped could then help advance map making and help the community grow. I might be expecting too much or expecting crops to grow without rain and I am in no way saying if you are experienced you have to dedicate all of you time to helping others. I just think that if we can get more experienced mappers who understand the game and how it interacts with maps then the community will amazing growth and more people with different ideas could help make our maps more advanced and evolve the map making metagame (i know it isn't truely relevant but I couldn't think of a better word)
Yeah, I personally understand what this feels like. My last map received one comment. I realize it was asymmetric and so very few people would have much experience, but really any feedback is good feedback. :/
blizzard does scale and tint doodads all the time, i don't see any problems there. mixing tilesets is a little bit more difficult, imho. i know blizzard does in very few occasions, but the tileset itself can still be easily recognized as such. they don't really mix textures to create something new. they stay within their starcraft universe.
Blizzard has used different colors of water than just blue/green. Shakuras Plateau, for example, has purple water. I think as long as the water fits with the theme there shouldn't be any problem.
On September 18 2011 11:15 MisfortuneS Ghost wrote: Blizzard has used different colors of water than just blue/green. Shakuras Plateau, for example, has purple water. I think as long as the water fits with the theme there shouldn't be any problem.
On September 18 2011 04:59 Barrin wrote: I started writing this several days ago, but then I got the worst cold I've ever had (didn't even touch computer for a day and a half). That's also why my write-ups are late (posting today or tomorrow).
If you are one of the people disappointed with MotM9, you are required to read this post before expressing anymore disappointment in this thread ^_^ (not really, but yeah).+ Show Spoiler +
I want everyone to know that we are certainly listening to and understanding your concerns. I know full well the frustration of having a map you spent countless hours on being denied a MotM finalist position (which almost invariably leads to it being never used again).
Identifying possible problems is a good thing... but at one point in this thread it moved past the “identifying possible problems” boundary and more into “complaining/whining”. Perhaps we should discuss potential solutions to the possible problems; maybe simply asking for further clarification (now and in the future, and I'm happy to say that some of you are doing/did so) instead of complaining and defaming.
As an aside, there is this thing I like to call "mapmaking progression philosophy". I've been meaning to make a thread for it for a loong time, but it really is little more than this: I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A) improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B) taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map. Interestingly enough this same concept can be (and is) applied to "player progression philosophy" as well. It is a well known theory that given a long enough timeframe, the player who chooses to focus on early aggression/cheesing almost every game (strategy b) is going to eventually be an overall worse player than the person who focuses on improving their late-game mechanics and surviving the early game (strategy A). + Show Spoiler +
(disclaimer: at least in mapmaking, Strategy A and B are not mutually exclusive (indeed it makes sense to do B while doing A); it is the degrees of focus on either one that I am addressing.)
If you don't consider yourself very experienced in mapmaking (2+ years; yes, into the BW days), and if you're not learning a lot from almost every map you make, then you're probably doing it wrong (probably not receiving/comprehending enough feedback - put yourself out there - do not be afraid to be wrong, be afraid of being wrong and never realizing it).
The first issue I wish to address is the idea that MotM tends to choose maps that are "standard".
Well, what is standard exactly? Is there any single map we can point to and say "that's the standard!"?
No. That doesn't make sense because there are many different categories of maps. However for some of these categories we do have at least one map to look to as a standard.
For clarity, each of these categories has varying degrees of [# of bases], [# of spawn positions], [symmetry type], [map size], and if you wanna get down to it [difficulty of expanding to & holding natural], [difficulty of expanding to and holding third], [optional thirds], and [level of air space around map]... (you can go on for a long ass time categorizing differences IMO, but these are the true major ones).
map size: small [100x100 to 115x115 OR 110x90 to 120x100]; medium [130x110 to 150x130 OR 120x120 to 140x140]; large [150x150 to 180x180]
sub categories:
difficulty of expanding to & holding natural: openness, length, number (any blocked off?), breadth of chokes (and their distance from CC), main cliffability, ramp. ((easy/medium/hard))
difficulty of expanding to & holding third: distance from nat entrance, attack entrance(s) distance(s) from nat entrance (and their openness, length, number, breadth of chokes. ((easy/medium/hard))
optional thirds: how many? what are their different characteristics? ((no, 2, 3))
level of air space around map: low; medium (or scattered), high
------------
If you take all the possible combinations with just these major features, that's 37,908 different combinations for categories of maps (20,412 if you only count # of bases from 10 to 16)... these numbers double every time you add a variable with 2 possible values (and I could do that sensibly, with fairly major things like close air positions or backdoor into main, possibility of gold expansionl, whether or not there are XWT's, square or rectangle, and others).
Well, you wouldn't really want a 2player, 10base map that's the size of Tal'Darim Altar. So most of those combinations don't really make sense. However, I would say that there's easily a few hundred that do, and of those maybe 50 or so that have been done fairly well (many, maybe most, haven't even been tried).
So. There is a "standard" for some of these combinations.
The standard for a medium-sized, 2-player, 10-base, rotational symmetry map with hard to take/hold natural, hard to take/hold third(s), 2 optional thirds, and low level of air space around the map is... + Show Spoiler +
Xel'Naga Caverns
How about the standard for a medium/large, 4(3) player, 14-base, reflection (insignificant shift) symmetry map with easy to take/hold natural, easy to take/hold thirds, (sorta) 2 optional thirds, and fairly low level of air space around the map? + Show Spoiler +
Shakuras Plateau
Or how about the standard for a medium, 4 player, 16-base, rotational symmetry map with fairly easy to take/hold natural, medium to take/hold thirds, 2 optional thirds, and a medium (scattered) level of air space around the map? + Show Spoiler +
Artifice and some of the maps quite like it
IMO, there aren't very many other standards that are "standard" on the same level as these (there are varying levels of "standard" IMO). Maybe Tal'darim Altar is a standard for huge maps because it's like the only one. There are two more that I will get to soon.*
Now it gets really fun, because each CATEGORY has multiple STYLES. That is, category deals with spawn count, base count, symmetry type, map size, nat difficulty, third difficulty, optional thirds, level of air space around map, etc. Style gets even more specific (and ambiguous) and deals with terrain/cliff structures, openness distribution (and how it falls into pathing/army positioning gameplay), base vulnerabilities, and that sort of thing.
I'm probably speaking for all the judges (and probably most progamers too) when I say we care more about varied style than varied category (which is why this "We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!" is rather misleading and deserves(d) clarification).
An important concept to understand here is something I harped on a lot almost a year ago. In fact I promised (probably more than once) that I would make a [D] thread on it, but I never did. The concept goes something like this: each dot of terrain means something and has the potential to have an affect on the game itself (even if it has miniscule potential to have an affect on the actual outcome of the game).
Another thing to understand here is that things matter more in the early game. In other words, early game terrain has a bigger effect on more games played than late game terrain (probably all games, tbh). The earlier in the game it is used, the more it matters.
A less than ideal example is Main Chokes in PvP. It doesn't really get any more early game than your main choke. If the main choke is flat instead of a ramp (los blockers and high ground next to it aside), all of the sudden the entire PvP matchup is broken because of one small piece of terrain.
A simple overlord pod where there wasn't one can mean the difference between the zerg seeing an army coming across a path in time to move his army to defend the target base or not seeing it at all and half the workers and the hatchery at the target base dying.
A little bit of air space behind a main can mean the difference between a full octodrop (or two) at the ~10 minute mark being picked off by stalkers or not.
There are many timing attacks that can either be very effective or completely useless against an enemy natural ramp depending on if the ramp is 2 blocks wide or 3 blocks wide.
A single tile of pathable terrain can mean the difference between whether or not a the mineral line (or gas geyser) at a nat or third base is siegable.
There are countless more less significant examples. But all of these can have very significant affects on games... and we're only talking about very small pieces of terrain!
-----
You guessed it: medium sized pieces of terrain can have an even bigger impact.
Move a third base a whole 8x8 square (diagonally) and you can "tuck" almost "behind" your natural entrance (depending on positioning). This can mean the difference between very macro oriented games or games that tend to stay on 2-bases significantly longer.
Give a gold base a tight choke instead of an open one and all of the sudden Terran reigns supreme.
Make a main base small (23 CC)'s instead of medium (30 CC's) and T's and P's QQ all day that they don't have enough room to build, and arguably more importantly it becomes MUCH easier to scout (giving information that is acted upon instead of remaining unknown).
There are hundreds (probably thousands) of examples like this, many of which we haven’t even found yet.
Can you think of any two maps that have been in the ladder pool that have very similar categories but significantly different styles? Think for a minute; if you can't come up with something, you have no place to call overgrown and emerald jungle too similar to shakuras plateau.
Of course I am speaking of Shattered Temple and Metalopolis. Categorically wise, they are almost identical:
Shattered Temple: 4(3) spawns 12 bases medium size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2+ optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
Metalopolis: 4(3) spawns 12 bases medium size reflection symmetry medium natural medium third(s) 2+ optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
Yet somehow they manage to have relatively different styles. This is even a suboptimal example of how drastically different styles can be (its easy to relate to though).
*These two maps are indeed the "standard" for their categories.
Alright, now let's take a close look at the two maps people are saying is too much like Shakuras.
Shakuras (156x128): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2 optional thirds low air space around map
Overgrown (158x137): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size* reflection symmetry easy natural hard third(s) 2 optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
In the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras.
The categories are almost the same, can't deny that.
Aside from basic base layout, the style is actually quite different.
Take a close look at the naturals. The differences actually have a significant effect on the early game, which in turn makes a profound effect on the mid and late game.
Think about trying to take a third on shakuras, then think about trying to take a third on overgrown. That's right; it's a lot harder to do it on overgrown. One of the thirds is VERY open. The other third is kinda far away from the open third, which in combination with the openness of the other third, makes it hard to hold both of them. Unlike Shakuras, the third you take on overgrown kind of funnels you in to one of two (very different) expansion patterns.
There is also a hell of a lot more pathing options on Overgrown than on Shakuras. The "central width" of Shakuras is very small in relation to it's size, which (if you ask any pro player) is one of it's biggest defining features. This is a huge point, but it's hard to explain it's profound impact on the mid-late and late game (comes with experience).
Again, in the context of what's possible, this map is more like Shakuras than it is unlike Shakuras. However, it's almost as unlike Shakuras as it could possibly be while still being mostly like Shakuras.
Shakuras (156x128): 4(3) spawns 14 bases medium/large size reflection symmetry easy natural medium third(s) 2 optional thirds low air space around map
Emerald Jungle (158x152): 4(3) spawns 16 bases large size reflection symmetry medium natural easy third + hard third 2 optional thirds medium (scattered) air space around map
The categories are in the same ballpark. Significantly different, however. Emerald Jungle is hardly even a rectangle (shakuras is VERY rectangular, part of why it has a small central width).
Holy fuck the style is soooo different. I'm seriously about to noobslap anyone who thinks otherwise. TWICE if you have to look any farther than the basic base layout in combination with the pathing to see it.
I dare you to show me why I'm wrong.
You say they're too much like Shakuras? I say you look too much at the category, and not nearly enough at the style.
While we're looking at specific maps, let's take a look at Tenarsis.
Some of you are saying this map is too standard. Tell me, which "standardish" map does this map resemble...? Take your time.
That's right. There is none (actually it does kinda remind me of my next still-private map >.<, but that's besides the point).
What you really mean is that it uses a bunch of MINOR, non-unique map features and tries to put a new spin on them (and spinning it does).
Quite frankly I've never seen a map with the same midgame layout as this one, or even close to it. The area outside of the natural is fairly unique (please prove otherwise).
Someone specified that the fact that there is optional thirds is one reason why this map isn't unique. I've never seen an optional thirds layout quite like this one (especially considering the fairly small (not too small..) natural rush distances.
I love how you can place your army at the gold and simultaneously soundly defend the two bases behind it (but leaving your natural adequately vulnerable). This isn't entirely new, but in the context of the whole map it is.
And you see, that's the thing. It's not only about individual map features. It's also how those individual map features interact with the rest of the map... Everything in a game like SC2 is connected; you can't say you know everything about something without also knowing the entire context that it takes place in. Indeed, as the context (map) changes, so does the concept (feature).+ Show Spoiler +
This is how you can talk to someone about some concept in SC2 that you both can identify and understand, but the fact that you have more context to refer to means that they won't really understand it the same way you do. We run into this constantly in judge discussions. I personally run into this all the time when trying to explain things to people.
And by the way, if it's recognition for your good work you seek, then it doesn't really help you if few other people can fully appreciate the depth of your work. I wont lie, this is actually a main reason why I used to be very vocal in this community... What was the point of making badass maps if I'm the only one who understands why they're badass? (disclaimer: I never actually made a badass map, but if I did...!)
What I'm saying is that you can take old ""standard"" features and do something new and creative with them. This is not the only way to be creative, but it is a huge part of it. How ridiculous would it be if you made a map with only 100% new features anyway (if that's even possible)?
(By the way there are sorta different levels of "features". So far I meant only individual features (example: double ramp main on scrap station). You can categorize them further and have a series of connected individual features (I will call these "structures"). You should always make sure that each individual feature actually fits in to the overall concept of a map (there's probably more overall concepts than individual features).)
Nobody is claiming that Bardiche and/or Derelict are standard-ish (especially Bardiche), right? *raises ban hammer*loljk* Seriously though. They're not - at all.
Unique != Good.
I'll be honest. I am aware that there is more to the feeling of "standard" that I have yet to acknowledge in this post. There is something that is done quite properly in pretty much every non-blizzard map that made it to the bigger 1v1 tournaments.
I can't speak for the rest of the judges, but personally I put A LOT of weight on this. Three words:
Army. Positioning. Gameplay.
Some of you probably remember my [D] Base Vulnerabilities thread. Army Positioning Gameplay is the other half of that story.
I am definitely going to make a [D] thread on Army Positioning Gameplay soon enough (I've been thinking about it specifically for several months now, making sure I get it down).
Army Positioning Gameplay is an extremely important concept at the highest of levels. Army Positioning Gameplay is akin to Micro; it is like Micro's bigger brother.
It is not easy at all to make a map with very good Army Positioning Gameplay while simultaneously being very unique AND balanced. It's downright fucking hard, actually. It is an art.
This topic deserves it's own thread (don't worry I'll make it), so I don't wanna get too detailed here. For now I think it's sufficient to say that two things in particular cause bad Army Positioning Gameplay.
(1) Too much restriction in pathing. This is usually caused by multiple LONG cliffs or unpathable space (long as in no breaks). It can make engagements too predictable, and it can allow you to always engage exactly where you want in a defensive posture. Boring, lowers skill ceiling.
(2) Too little restriction in pathing. For the most part, having every pathway and every base pathing-connected to every pathway and every base next to it is, you guessed it: boring. When you have too much freedom in pathing, you're not risking enough when you move your army around; you cannot be as easily be punished for your mistakes and in turn cannot as easily punish people for their mistakes. There must be suspense (that's a very basic way of putting it). Also, pathing restriction is one of your biggest tools for making your map unique and interesting.
Of course, armies don't just run all around the map trying to find the most efficient choke points to engage in. Armies defend bases, and armies attack bases (and other armies). Mostly defend actually. Which means they usually must remain in reasonably close proximity to the base(s) they are trying to protect (unless they're attacking o.O). But the best place to defend your natural often shouldn't be the best place to defend both your natural and your third, etc. And it should occasionally make sense to move your army away from this position (for a variety of reasons).
Many (if not most) of the maps submitted this month that are "unique" and "non-standard" have pretty sub-par Army Positioning Gameplay. IMO, at least.
I believe that more people should be focusing more on (strategy A) improving on your current mapmaking skills and less on (strategy B) taking what you do know and trying to shove it all into a single map in hopes you will win a competition or a large tournament will use your map.
- Barrin
i enjoyed reading this but I have to make a rebuttal. please see the following (spoiler as to not derail thread)
you talk alot about army positioning but do not mention army movement. You mention how wider paths and wider base areas effect gameplay yet, in the case of these copy cat maps, the end result is the same as the game progresses in the same way as the original.
this is what great map pools feature - originality in gameplay from map to map in a series.
in the case of motm, compare funcmode's two maps: + Show Spoiler +
while your point with the nuances of terrain may be true, and that certain 'areas' of the map may alter the engagements a bit, in this particular example, you cannot definitely argue it provides a radically different experience. this is where motm falters.
this is what sets tournaments such as the GSL in an upper echelon altogether as with their map selection, they realize the importance of having this variance in their map pool. in the following example, the 4p GSL maps, you will notice the differences. of note is the similarity between antiga and taldarim, but the expansion layout on antiga is very different than that of taldarim + Show Spoiler +
the same cannot be said with overgrown. if you replace shakuras in your map pool with overgrown, the players move, attack, and expand in all the same general directions. yes, there is one additional attack path in overgrown, but it only comes into play in the later game; it is essentially the same map. + Show Spoiler +
your point on the the fact that there is a finite limit to general map layouts is true. even my own shuriken map follows the same boring map concept of a 4 player rotational. but in this situation, the job of the mapper is provide an experience unlike other maps. in the following example, i have orientated my map to mimic motm's. you will see the expansion layout is generally the same, yet (as per your argument) are obvious the major terrain differences and alteration of the expansion path. + Show Spoiler +
note my map is reversed in the above image, to have the same expansion+attack path
the following is the actual map orientation and expansion directions, + Show Spoiler +
i have been very outspoken against motm and its judging in the last little while, yet, i feel the above speaks for itself, and is probably the standpoint of alot of mappers here. you wonder when you look at the GSL map pool in all its variety, and then quite literally bow your head in shame when looking at the motm pool. i say shame because it reflects on myself to think i had an active interest in such a movement, the hope it would truly showcase the originality and uniqueness of the mapping community and the wide variety of play you could see in sc2. for individual mappers, they invest many hours to strive to figure out and provide these different maps, only to be left in the dust because a map team can put in the man hours to make prettier use of doodads. you question your use of time and support around the matter.
but alas, I don't really expect motm to change its ways. it was very clear in the last thread that for whatever professional reason, they will play it safe in map picking. and it is their organization, so there's nothing more to say on the matter. i probably wont be submitting maps to motm ever again as a result, but such is to be expected from the above.
On September 18 2011 04:59 Barrin wrote: I started writing this several days ago, but then I got the worst cold I've ever had (didn't even touch computer for a day and a half). That's also why my write-ups are late (posting today or tomorrow).
<big wall of text here>
- Barrin
please see personal comment, i have been very outspoken against motm and its judging in the last little while, yet, i feel the above speaks for itself, and is probably the standpoint of alot of mappers here. you wonder when you look at the GSL map pool in all its variety, and then quite literally bow your head in shame when looking at the motm pool. i say shame because it reflects on myself to think i had an active interest in such a movement, the hope it would truly showcase the originality and uniqueness of the mapping community and the wide variety of play you could see in sc2. for individual mappers, they invest many hours to strive to figure out and provide these different maps, only to be left in the dust because a map team can put in the man hours to make prettier use of doodads. you question your use of time and support around the matter.
but alas, I don't really expect motm to change its ways. it was very clear in the last thread that for whatever professional reason, they will play it safe in map picking. and it is their organization, so there's nothing more to say on the matter. i probably wont be submitting maps to motm ever again as a result, but such is to be expected from the above.
GL to tpw in nasl.
While I understand your concern (and appreciate you voicing it- seriously, it helps when people say what they think), I do believe that most of what your saying isn't entirely true. I'll just post a few of my thoughts in spoilers, it's kind of long-
you wonder when you look at the GSL map pool in all its variety, and then quite literally bow your head in shame when looking at the motm pool. i say shame because it reflects on myself to think i had an active interest in such a movement, the hope it would truly showcase the originality and uniqueness of the mapping community and the wide variety of play you could see in sc2.
First of all, GSL and MotM are kind of different. The GSL is a professional tournament that has korean map testing (via Gisado) and almost exclusively uses map from the Prime mapmakers. Each map is made privately by the top level mapmakers, tested by professionals, and modified for use in the GSL. However, MotM takes any map from any person in the entire universe and has to pick the top five ranging from the worst maps to pretty decent ones. You cannot expect MotM to have equal or more experimental maps than the GSL because we don't have the same testing or experienced mapmakers required to balance and design a competitive experimental map.
That being said, I can't understand how you possibly say you bow your head in shame to the MotM maps. Lets see this month:
Bardiche: Absolutely crazy map with all sorts of features that completely change the metagame of Starcraft 2. Nothing like any map out except the layout of the main and natural- the first two bases almost have to be like this for map balance. Compared to BelShir Beach and Daybreak this map is far more experimental.
Derelict: Never before seen middle design with a small path and larger path on the outside, completely unique expansion layout, and a unique gold third design. Amazing work with map control features- no map has had the same "brood war-esque" map control that this has because of the highground sickle. This map is just as experimental as XelNaga Fortress and Metalopolis.
Emerald Jungle: How many reflection maps are there in competitive play right now? I can think of one that is becoming out of date. Other than that, Emerald Jungle also introduces an unusual natural and third layout. While it is not that experimental, it is no less than Antiga Shipyard.
Tenarsis: Not many features of this map are highly unusual, but nothing will have the same expansion pattern and army positioning/movement that it has. The only thing close is XNC, but the expansions are much more limited and harder to hold on that.
Not to direct something at you, but can you please run through which maps we should have chosen instead? Like all of the maps that were submitted that are way more experimental and balanced than these.
for individual mappers, they invest many hours to strive to figure out and provide these different maps, only to be left in the dust because a map team can put in the man hours to make prettier use of doodads.
The only map worked on by a team was Concrete Dreams, and it didn't win.
Additionally, you act as if the individual mapmakers are much better than the teams who just are good at aesthetics. Instead of just saying teams, lets say TPW because we know that's what you are talking about. TPW and ESV strive to create new and interesting maps just as much as anybody else does- I'd better probably twice as much on average. If you are talking about yourself spending much more time than map teams, say that and not "for individual mappers" because it is not true.
I can assure you the least of our concerns is how good a map looks. Anybody can do that, and it is almost purely personal preference. Only a knowledgeable and experienced mapmaker can make a well designed and balanced melee map. Basically if you have two maps that are the same, the one with better aesthetics wins. End of story in my opinion.
but alas, I don't really expect motm to change its ways. it was very clear in the last thread that for whatever professional reason, they will play it safe in map picking.
If in order to be happy you must get your maps into tournaments, then mapmaking is not for you.
But seriously, this is true. Nobody except a very few people have gotten their maps into big tournaments at this point. If "winning a competion" is something you have to do in order to want to keep going, just don't keep going - find something else you enjoy doing. Note: I realize you just say you won't enter, not that you will stop mapmaking.
MotM is not "Experimental Map of the Month". We judge on many things including balance, concept, proportions, creativity, and aesthetics. Don't pretend that you understand everything about mapmaking- nobody knows it all. Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
On September 18 2011 09:24 Barrin wrote:I think it's okay to change these EVER SO SLIGHTLY if you're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE you know what you're doing. BE SUBTLE.
I think it's okay to be a little more liberal with the doodads, but it's probably not a good idea to shove a bunch of 500% sized doodads all over the place (maybe 200-300% trees and the occasional 500% tree if u REALLY want around map borders?)
I urge debaters to avoid strawman arguments, wherein you portray the opposing person's ideas as a more extreme version in order to make your argument easier, or portray theirs as ridiculous. No one, I believe, has asked for creativity to be the only criteria for judging.
From TVTropes.org The Straw Man occurs when a debater constructs a more easily defeated version of his opponent's position to attack, rather than addressing his real arguments. The fallacy takes its name from straw dummies used in old-fashioned combat training; these dummies were made to look like a potential opponent, but provide no actual resistance. The fallacy itself is comparable to defeating such a dummy, then proclaiming you have defeated an actual opponent.
On September 18 2011 14:07 monitor wrote: MotM is not "Experimental Map of the Month". We judge on many things including balance, concept, proportions, creativity, and aesthetics. Don't pretend that you understand everything about mapmaking- nobody knows it all. Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
i feel this will continue to be the major point of contention between map makers and yourselves. no one can say they could have forseen the success of those maps like taldarim, crevasse, or even testbug and dual sight, when they were released during the time when people only played metal and lost temple, and map pools still had blistering sands and scrap station. yet here we are today in a completely different world - those blizzard maps a far and distant memory, and mappers continue to build on the success set fourth by those drastically different maps.
perhaps you need to reconsider your description - and position - of your organization and this competition, and how you approach the community:
We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!
Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
On September 18 2011 17:37 a176 wrote: i feel this will continue to be the major point of contention between map makers and yourselves. no one can say they could have forseen the success of those maps like taldarim, crevasse, or even testbug and dual sight, when they were released during the time when people only played metal and lost temple, and map pools still had blistering sands and scrap station. yet here we are today in a completely different world - those blizzard maps a far and distant memory, and mappers continue to build on the success set fourth by those drastically different maps.
That is actually not true. Back when we played maps likes delta, blistering sands, lost temple, jungle basin etc. Every player, spectator, and their pets were saying that any maps that are different than those would be much better. I remember everyone saying at first sight when they saw tal darim and test bug before they saw any games on them, that they would be much better than what people played at that time. And honestly, had it been almost any map that was submitted to this MOTM, they would have gotten an equally positive reaction.
Now map makers live a harder times, as players dont cry anymore that they would want play any other map than what they currently do. So there is not really a reason to test new compleatly different maps.
On September 18 2011 14:07 monitor wrote: MotM is not "Experimental Map of the Month". We judge on many things including balance, concept, proportions, creativity, and aesthetics. Don't pretend that you understand everything about mapmaking- nobody knows it all. Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
i feel this will continue to be the major point of contention between map makers and yourselves. no one can say they could have forseen the success of those maps like taldarim, crevasse, or even testbug and dual sight, when they were released during the time when people only played metal and lost temple, and map pools still had blistering sands and scrap station. yet here we are today in a completely different world - those blizzard maps a far and distant memory, and mappers continue to build on the success set fourth by those drastically different maps.
perhaps you need to reconsider your description - and position - of your organization and this competition, and how you approach the community:
Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
Can you please list all of the maps that are more creative than the top five that we should have chosen instead?
The two statements that you quoted from the OP and me are not contradictory. We do encourage creativity in the maps- why would we not? However, if we only pick the maps because of creativity, say goodbye to MotM as it is currently. The OP is simply saying that making a creative map is better than a standard map- the OP does not say a creative map will always win over a standard map.
hey guys, im going to be taking a hiatus for a while from mapmaking since im moving, so if you dont see me posting in the custom forum thats why. gl with motm and try to be nice to eachother.
On September 18 2011 09:24 Barrin wrote:I think it's okay to change these EVER SO SLIGHTLY if you're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE you know what you're doing. BE SUBTLE.
I think it's okay to be a little more liberal with the doodads, but it's probably not a good idea to shove a bunch of 500% sized doodads all over the place (maybe 200-300% trees and the occasional 500% tree if u REALLY want around map borders?)
*Whistles innocently*
LOL hehe ;D
Of course I approve of this dialogue heartily. Sometimes I forget that either side of the argument has to be articulated, at great length, even if they seem obvious to me and to--I would assume--most people. Therefore I'm really proud of Barrin and monitor for taking the time to delineate the various points and counterpoints involved in addressing the concerns being voiced. I'm also really proud of everybody who brings up a complaint and says, "well that's great, but here's my particular disagreement". That is infinitely more constructive than a bunch of dissenting posts that resemble each other and the prevailing viewpoint posters saying "no you're wrong" repeatedly. And our mapping community is the stronger for it.
I hope everybody realizes that the map forum is probably the most legit place here... not to denigrate the other sections of the website. I guess liquipedia and the coverage teams (which are almost like official segments) are pretty good too.
I think the idea of blue posters is really cool. I hope something like that can be implemented at some point. Anyone with blue would probably feel extra motivation to step in and provide guidance in a wayward argument or dote upon a map thread with little action that needs some good feedback.
You were actually onto something nice with this map. Unfortunately it needs a good deal of refinement in a lot of areas
Heh, what can I say, my first SC2 map. I've had a lot of great feedback from the motm team though which has really helped, so hopefully the next (which is coming along really well, though I still haven't managed to fit any destructible rocks into it ) will be both nice (awesome??? ) and refined. And once I get a bit more experience under my belt I'll try to come back and make Master System into the map it really ought to be. Looking forward to the next!
On September 19 2011 04:52 Barrin wrote: ESV Bardiche It's this kind of map that makes judging really fucking hard. It's really interesting the way the map is split in combination with the drastice shifts in openness and multiple (dynamic) pathways. I donno; this map is soo unique IMO. Actual games on it will say more than I can.
Glad to see that my map made you tear your hair off .
without having access to some of the maps, especially those with no map threads, its hard to judge some of the maps. giving a rundown of the maps based on whats available;
The map layout is extremely interesting in this map. As I stated in previous posts, at first glance it appears to play like shakuras plateau (on its side), but well thought out pathing and ramps make it very different. The only real criticism I can apply to the map is the texturing in combination with the lighting makes it look far too bland than what it could (too much brown!).
Unfortunately, this map screams desert oasis to me and I very much did not enjoy that map. To be particular, its the fact the expos are extremely out of the way, very inaccessible, and the general map distances are a bit too long.
This map has some cute aspects to it, but kind of badly designed as a result. Very far third, only upto 4 bases per side (fourth extremely far as well). Considering this was designed almost a year ago may have something to do with it
holy shit this map is big. its interesting the notion that you have four bases right together, but extremely hard to defend all four because they are no connected. but alas, its not really tournament spec
I really, really love the layout of this map. When players enter the mid game, a plethora of pathing and attack options open up which should make for very interesting games for all matchups.
Ohana is a very aesthetically pleasing, and seemingly interesting in gameplay at first glance. But a closer analysis of gameflow shows that its very XNC-esque in that the expos are not very accessible and engagements will end up occuring in very general areas of the map.
This map follows the XNC layout. The variation lies in the size of the map, which ends up being a bit too wide. But with XNC style maps, the issue lies in the engagement areas which end up occurring in the same general area on the map.
Mereel says this map is inspired by Tau cross ... but I honestly don't see that resemblance, aside from aesthetics. However, as a BW player, I do notice the BW-map inspirations in the placement of the expos and layout of the map (highfive).
I enjoy that there are two seperate playstyles based on spawn location.
7/2oclock spawns: At first you question the choice of having three bases in one general area, but the design of the area forces players to play very defensively if they want to be risky and take a fast third. In the case of zergs, this is actually beneficial to them as the third is perhaps the most safest to obtain in almost any SC2 map i've seen. Yet the map distance is short enough to keep zergs on alert even when expoing to this area. Macro specialist zergs may have a significant advantage on the map ... who knows
10/5 spawns: The third is not as easily accessible in this layout, but it is actually not that far in distance, and the mineral block is cute and is dispelled of quite fast, and you get 100 minerals. In this layout, the expo direction and attack pathing goes all around and across the map, is properly spread out and just looks great overall.
The originally submitted map was pretty bad. There was a selection of mapping follies here ... the map is a bit far too wide, redundant XNTs, straight forward pathing, rocks blocking the third AND fourth. In the updated version, the third is a bit more accessible, but still blocked by rocks, and only one gas? It is a two-layout like Damage Inc. above, but in one configuration, the third is extremely hard to get and defend. The mapper still has a ways to go with this map
I believe Winio was being very expertimental with this map, obvious with the placement of the third. But the execution is somewhat lacking because there isn't much movement in the map. The gameflow resembles that of XNC where players take the gold as their third and turtle up in that area; the third here is very turtable and even more inaccessible compared to XNC due to the ramps. Further, I worry about the defense of this base from air attacks (and even siege tanks?) due to the proximity of the minerals to the edge of the cliff.
The golds become your fourth but its placement doesnt change the army movement that much. Hopefully another version of this map could make it work.
Unlike most people, I enjoy seeing and playing on these mirrored scrap-style maps. You have to closely examine this map in particular to see all its nuances and I do like it. My cocerns are that it may be just a tad too big, and the third (going down) may be a tad too inaccessible of moving/spreading your army for defense.
I would like to see some mechanism to help denying scouting as I really enjoy seeing secret expos on this style of map, which on a map of this size and layout, is definitely an option.
The map is best described as the offspring of metaloplis and Typhon Peaks. It has the openness of metal with the base layout of typhon. though I feel in the situation where the middle-area base becomes the third, its a bit too out of the way as compared to typhon; its very easily attacked from the enemy and poses a problem for defense because of its distance. Reorientating this expo may help but then you're just playing a typhon clone.
The layout resembles dual sight but there are more pathing options. This seems advantageous at first, the availability of these pathing options makes countering and flanking a bit too strong. With many maps (myself included), this is a delicate operation to have these countering options, yet not be too generous with them, and to have them appropiately sized and distanced. Some rocks here or there would help steer the map in the direction. Finally, it needs alot more texturing. All in all, good start, but needs more work.
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
At very first glance I thought this map looked pretty cool. Then I noticed the back ramp leading into a back base and then everything began falling through the cracks. In particular, the size of this map its major drawback. Giving players a backyard third is always a risky map option, and the authors tried to alleviate it by making it fairly attackable (after destroying some rocks). The issue is that even with the rocks gone, it is easily defendable due to its proximity to the main+nat, and very out of the way for the attacker because of the map size.
Beyond that, the fourth is also easily defendable. You have to think about the gameplay balance and economics of having players on easy and quick four bases, which doesnt make for a good map. I appreciate the use of pathing on the map, but theres need to be much more risk to the players.
You want to know something? This map is a jewel in the rough. It resembles Shakuras Plateu in layout but there are major differences. The "close third" from shakuras is gone, and is now shared between the two bases rather than being close to the main; further this base is fairly risky to take for its well-foward position and orientation, yet is easily reinforced and defended because of its proximity to the your other bases. There are more bases towards the middle of the map and the positioning is superb in my eyes.
The rough part is that the pathing of the map is not much better than Shakuras. The middle of this is alot worse actually, as its pretty much a clusterfuck of chokes because of the XNTs. You can opt to go around the middle but it is much, much, much further distance because of the sizing of the map.
I would like to comment that with further refinement of the pathing and wideness, this map would be a total (and awesome) spiritual successor to Shakuras.
So this is another rotational map. The structure of the map is such that the attack pathing doesnt really change as the game flows because the you have to go through the third to get to the nat. The distance of the third, as well as the area around the third, is structured in such a way to be far enough to worry about defense of your entire base from harass, but I see little in the way of movement for T and P armies.
There are layout issues with the map. The gameflow upto three bases is static because the one general attack path to the enemy base, which includes the ramp into the third. You have go a distance around the third to attack from the other ramp, but you do not have much room for movement in that situation. There are also structures in the middle which inhibit army movement, creating an aritificial choke, which is not good. The fourth is a major problem because in one direction, its ridiculously far away for both players to attack and defend, and the other direction is ridiculously easy to attack and hard to defend.
Note, this is not a Shakuras plateu clone. The significant issue is that there's only one way to into the third, which is protected by the choke into your entire base. Essentially, a free and easy third. There is no variation in the attack path as a result so its a pretty bland map.
So Venti. It is a rotational map so there is a certain imbalance in the expo directions. When you look at the other (and only) 3p maps; XNFortress is pretty badly designed as you are either forced to expo towards the middle, which drastically reduces the attack distance, or go the safer route towards a much further (and i mean far) expo. Testbug is a much better map with the placement of the bases, but there is an expo with only one ramp leading into it. Further, the middle is virtually featureless and wide open.
Venti resembles Testbug's layout but there are major differences. It is significantly pathing orientated due to many breaks in the terrain, in particular the cliffs around the golds in the middle. The bases are all accessible for both attackers and defenders, unlike that one single base on testbug,
The wide open third is obviously less favorable than the third with the ramps, but I designed it to be equidistant from the nat as the third with the ramps to help alleviate imbalance. There is significant airspace around the map but so is the nature of these three player maps (trying to fit a triangle in a square). Indeed, this is present in testbug as well. The only way to solve this problem is to use a circular map ala Fortress, or try to design an unsightly map like Outsider from BW. But then, its not like players are expanding to those open spaces?
Can it be? A properly done BW remake? While I cannot give credit to the mapper for the layout, its an extremely well done copy of the bw map. The use of green minerals is the crux of this map and what makes it awesome. The design of the map in combination with those minerals is what breaks the traditional 4p rotational gameflow. The positioning of the third is what forces players to be more agressive with army positioning in order to have proper defense of these expos. The texturing job is also amazing. Great map.
Like Bardiche, there are critical choke issues with the map. I'm not quite sure what to say with having a XNT in the middle, on a high ground, behind chokes. Also, I'm not quite sure what to say with having such a safe gold either; in other maps, this is commonly 'the other third'. But there's only one ramp into the gold and plenty of space for static AA defense. The cliff behind the gold is peculiar as well; I thought the SC2 community had long forgotten about these things after lost temple/kulas/DQ? Its true that this is a gold, but then the mapper is literally forcing you to do dropship play in order to deal with this gold.
(To the ESV guys, I would definitely like to hear your responses to my issue with the chokes on your maps, in case there might be something I'm overlooking.)
Another dual-play map, but not a very good one. In 10/5 spawns, it plays like DQ with virtually all attacks going through the middle. Also, WHY IS THERE A BACKDOOR TO THE MAIN OMG Also, the XNTs on this map will see units going around the middle, but in this configuration, virtually all movement goes through the middle, so is there something I'm missing here?
In the 2/7 spawns, despite the shortest path being through the middle, I'm sure the path around the middle is almost as short. Its alot less constricted, that's for sure. This attack lies in the XNT vision ... but not in the enemy's XNT vision, meaning you have to capture the XNT on the far side of the map. The attacking pathing is much better in this configuration, but the above concerns are major issues that need to be addressed
Apparently this is XNC inspired? And I believed it! I can see the resemblance in the middle, but the map is in fact much more reminiscent of Dual Sight. There are many pathing and expo options for three base and beyond.
First of all I'd like to apologize for beeing a bit late for this. For some unknown reason I kinda lost the motivation to read in and contribute to this thread for a short while. Not to keep you waiting for any longer though, here are not the winners of this months Special Award:
I know exactly what every single one of you is thinking right now. "Why didn't the master and commander of all Destructible Rocks placement - Dustin Browder - win this months award??" Settle down people! Now would it be fair to give the 'baskersville Award' to baskersville? Would it be fair to give the 'Match- MVP' award to IM.MVP? Or would it be fair to give the 'Oscar' to someone called Oscar? No it wouldn't! That's why I decided to dignify someone with it who has earned it almost just as much.
If you take a look at the winning map you'll see that any possible 3rd base as at least one set of Destructible Rocks around it. Ok granted, it's actually always 1 set. Still, he recognized where the rocks are needed to prohibit inbalances through mass expanding early on. To be honest it doesn't really surprise to see our appreciated fellow mapmaker WniO taking this Award home since he openly declared to have made a map that resembles a Blizzard map as well as possible. The Destructible Rock placement has certainly added to this goal quite a bit.
Congratulations to you fine sir and may you continue providing such excellent pieces of work in the future, especially since next month the goal will actually be the one you already attained this month. I would even say that you're one step ahead of everyone else.
First of all, if you're supposed to potatoballs judgement of a map and you look at a picture like this, it's just confusing as hell. To clarify, this is actually an asymmetrical map, so it's really supposed to look weird. If you're past this there are still a few things you can discover. As example, why are there 3 tiny ramps instead of a big one? What are those tiny paths/ramps in the middle right doing? Why does this whole map look like some kind of battle droid with some sort of horn attached to his forehead and his male genitals sticking out?
Well I can tell you right here! Ok I lied, noone but the creator can give you the answers you are seeking. But I can tell you one thing. Have you ever imagined how it would look like if you took all the crazy features you can think of and stuff it into one map? Yes? Well I have too and I don't know what would come out. But back to this map. It too is really crazy and doesn't try to be balanced like all those mainstream maps. I have no idea how it would play out and probably never will but I just must say one more thing about the map's looks: The aesthetics work is amazing and you can see how much time was put into it. I'm sure we'll see a lot more of our friend RumbleBadger in the future. So congratulations to you for securing this months 'Justin Bieber Award'.
This is actually not an award for the map but rather for the mapmaker himself. If you served in the Custom Map forum for some time you've definitly stumbled over some work of this guy. He's been around for quite some time and has produced a ton of high quality maps. Still he has never made it into a Top5 of our competition. Bad concept? Bad quality? Bad luck? To be honest, as long as I can remember this competition, Mereel has always made it ridiculously close to the Top5, always denied by some small features that got dismissed by some judges. Everytime a new MotM rolls around I keep out for his map in hope to finally grant him his first entry into the olymp of mapdesign.
For the sake of it, let's take a look at the latest submission, TPW Damage Inc. The idea of this map is so wildly awesome as the looks of it. The execution is.. almost without flaws. Let's say this: If the mainbase had been on highground and the taking of 6 bases a bit harder, it woul've most definitly been among the 5 winners. So you see how close this decicion was.
If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that our fellow mapmaker Mereel will make it into the Top5 eventually, even if it takes another year, and he shall push the curse of the kong line off himself as he turns to the gods of mapmaking, wielding his allmighty mouse cursor while shouting in agony and relief!
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote: ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
a176, thanks for the feedback on Master System, though would you be okay to clarify something for me? Though I'm wondering if you think my map is smaller than it really is... it doesn't compare to DQ in rush distance, it's actually a little uncomfortably large in my opinion (more like Shakuras' rush distance on the 10-5 naturals with the more direct route).
Anyway, the back door rocks weren't really intended to be meaningful in the 10-5 positions, but rather to open up 2 extra lategame routes around the edge of the map for counter attacks when playing from the 2-7 positions. I didn't think they were such a big concern when spawning in the 10-5 positions though, as the distance from the natural to the back door rocks is much smaller for the defender than the attacker, so any mobile defence shouldn't be hampered, and there's no direct path to it which Terran can exploit to have a counterattack free push against Zerg (unlike Blistering Sands and the original Shakuras Plateau respectively). But by avoiding these issues, I thought it would be okay. Is there another reason why there should never be back door rocks though? I'm thinking maybe it makes FFE much riskier, but if you can clarify exactly why you're having such an adverse reaction to them I'd appreciate the insight. ^^
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote: ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience.
From a zerg pov,
The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass.
Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg.
On September 19 2011 10:59 totalpigeon wrote: a176, thanks for the feedback on Master System, though would you be okay to clarify something for me? Though I'm wondering if you think my map is smaller than it really is... it doesn't compare to DQ in rush distance, it's actually a little uncomfortably large in my opinion (more like Shakuras' rush distance on the 10-5 naturals with the more direct route).
Anyway, the back door rocks weren't really intended to be meaningful in the 10-5 positions, but rather to open up 2 extra lategame routes around the edge of the map for counter attacks when playing from the 2-7 positions. I didn't think they were such a big concern when spawning in the 10-5 positions though, as the distance from the natural to the back door rocks is much smaller for the defender than the attacker, so any mobile defence shouldn't be hampered, and there's no direct path to it which Terran can exploit to have a counterattack free push against Zerg (unlike Blistering Sands and the original Shakuras Plateau respectively). But by avoiding these issues, I thought it would be okay. Is there another reason why there should never be back door rocks though? I'm thinking maybe it makes FFE much riskier, but if you can clarify exactly why you're having such an adverse reaction to them I'd appreciate the insight. ^^
The back door here is a bit more accessible than you may believe. In shakuras, you had to go around and into the next-door base, destroy the rocks there, destroy another set of rocks for the entrance into the main. In blistering sands, the rock entrance was at the front of the base so it was defendable as army size and movement increased. Yet these rocks were always very troublesome, which is they're gone in the current version of shakuras, and BS is a long gone memory.
In your map, there is only the one set of rocks, there is no extraneous terrain to go around, and as zerg, trying to stop hellions dashing into there will be extremely difficult throughout the entire length of the game due to these paths. As is always the issue, zergs do not have sunken colonies anymore to wall off these things with buildings like a toss and terran can, unless you build like a shitload of spine crawlers.
As for the DQ comparison - I'm not trying to say that its copying DQ to the letter, but having that base at the front will mimic the same kind of cross-position attacking you saw in DQ. But its really the notion that you go through the middle to attack nat to nat, and you still go through the middle to attack third to third, there is no real change as the game progresses.
First of all, if you're supposed to potatoballs judgement of a map and you look at a picture like this, it's just confusing as hell. To clarify, this is actually an asymmetrical map, so it's really supposed to look weird. If you're past this there are still a few things you can discover. As example, why are there 3 tiny ramps instead of a big one? What are those tiny paths/ramps in the middle right doing? Why does this whole map look like some kind of battle droid with some sort of horn attached to his forehead and his male genitals sticking out?
Well I can tell you right here! Ok I lied, noone but the creator can give you the answers you are seeking. But I can tell you one thing. Have you ever imagined how it would look like if you took all the crazy features you can think of and stuff it into one map? Yes? Well I have too and I don't know what would come out. But back to this map. It too is really crazy and doesn't try to be balanced like all those mainstream maps. I have no idea how it would play out and probably never will but I just must say one more thing about the map's looks: The aesthetics work is amazing and you can see how much time was put into it. I'm sure we'll see a lot more of our friend RumbleBadger in the future. So congratulations to you for securing this months 'Justin Bieber Award'.
I actually can't tell you how happy this makes me. =D The whole description of my map just makes me happy even if it really makes no sense, and I thought it was funny that I was rattling off the answers to all the questions you posed in my head and then read the sentence about how I was the only one who could answer all your questions...
And thanks a TON on the aesthetic compliments. I'm really not confident with my aesthetics at all and this was the first map where I thought I did an OK job, so to hear that you liked it makes me really happy. ^_^ Thanks again!
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote: ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience.
From a zerg pov,
The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass.
Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg.
Okay first, I would actually expand in the opposite direction, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with yours.
Circles are Terran bases. Boxes are armies. Now, if Terran secures the watch tower with his whole army, he is already in a dangerous situation as he is too far from his main to properly defend. If he even tries to move to attack, the Zerg army instantly has a ton of different paths to flank, and counter. There is no way you can both attack and defend your own base at the same time. Due to how slow the Terran army is in comparison to a Zerg's, you won't be able to keep up and you will lose.
If this were Starcraft 1, then yeah, Terran would be able to secure the entire high ground with that position, and probably have a safe natural too. In SC2 though, units path a lot better even through smaller chokes, and there is no miss chance going up cliffs.
Now the REASON I would expand the other way is because of the problems I listed above. By expanding to the 1 gas, you keep your army relatively close to your base and you have a viable fourth base to take.
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote: ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience.
From a zerg pov,
The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass.
Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg.
Okay first, I would actually expand in the opposite direction, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with yours.
Circles are Terran bases. Boxes are armies. Now, if Terran secures the watch tower with his whole army, he is already in a dangerous situation as he is too far from his main to properly defend. If he even tries to move to attack, the Zerg army instantly has a ton of different paths to flank, and counter. There is no way you can both attack and defend your own base at the same time. Due to how slow the Terran army is in comparison to a Zerg's, you won't be able to keep up and you will lose.
If this were Starcraft 1, then yeah, Terran would be able to secure the entire high ground with that position, and probably have a safe natural too. In SC2 though, units path a lot better even through smaller chokes, and there is no miss chance going up cliffs.
Now the REASON I would expand the other way is because of the problems I listed above. By expanding to the 1 gas, you keep your army relatively close to your base and you have a viable fourth base to take.
youve seemed to completely ignore my points on these chokes. i guess a better picture will help?
you can see the effect of the size of the chokes in the above. the third can be completely walled off, and the nat area can be walled as well as shown above using any combination of buildings and supply depots. the pink area is the siege tank range and you should start to get an idea of what im talking about with my second point from the previous post. this is another reason why its super safe to expand towards the 2gas rather than the 1gas.
ask yourself, would you as a terran actually run back to try to kill that army? how effective are zerglings when attacking through a funnel like that defended by even 3 siege tanks? well ... any zerg ground unit for that matter. you obviously let your defence deal (delay) with it while you move into the defenceless zerg base? all terrans do this because base race situations always force the zerg to return to defend their paltry amount of and immovable buildings.
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote: ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience.
From a zerg pov,
The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass.
Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg.
Okay first, I would actually expand in the opposite direction, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with yours.
Circles are Terran bases. Boxes are armies. Now, if Terran secures the watch tower with his whole army, he is already in a dangerous situation as he is too far from his main to properly defend. If he even tries to move to attack, the Zerg army instantly has a ton of different paths to flank, and counter. There is no way you can both attack and defend your own base at the same time. Due to how slow the Terran army is in comparison to a Zerg's, you won't be able to keep up and you will lose.
If this were Starcraft 1, then yeah, Terran would be able to secure the entire high ground with that position, and probably have a safe natural too. In SC2 though, units path a lot better even through smaller chokes, and there is no miss chance going up cliffs.
Now the REASON I would expand the other way is because of the problems I listed above. By expanding to the 1 gas, you keep your army relatively close to your base and you have a viable fourth base to take.
youve seemed to completely ignore my points on these chokes. i guess a better picture will help?
you can see the effect of the size of the chokes in the above. the third can be completely walled off, and the nat area can be walled as well as shown above using any combination of buildings and supply depots. the pink area is the siege tank range and you should start to get an idea of what im talking about with my second point from the previous post. this is another reason why its super safe to expand towards the 2gas rather than the 1gas.
ask yourself, would you as a terran actually run back to try to kill that army? how effective are zerglings when attacking through a funnel like that defended by even 3 siege tanks? well ... any zerg ground unit for that matter. you obviously let your defence deal (delay) with it while you move into the defenceless zerg base? all terrans do this because base race situations always force the zerg to return to defend their paltry amount of and immovable buildings.
I'm sorry but three siege tanks is a huge force to leave behind in the mid-game. Not to mention that any decent Zerg army can break the wall, or with the wall in your picture, go through it. Having been through countless base race situations myself against Terran, I am positive that Zerg will completely destroy Terran in that situation.
On September 19 2011 22:11 FlopTurnReaver wrote: Doesn't this map have a mapthread? If not it should definitly get one because this duscussion doesn't belong in here.
On September 19 2011 23:31 zarepath wrote: I really like Derelict for some reason.
Maybe its because you dont like zerg? The map seems reaallly chocky to me atleast.
I kinda agree with you there, but ESV Derelict is not as chokey as it seems. Although the half-moon highgrounds could be a bit wider imho, but the largest problem I see is the question of a viable third for Zerg. The only options I see is to either take the gold or one of the corner expos. And if you're terran I don't think there will be a question about what third to take.
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote: ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience.
From a zerg pov,
The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass.
Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg.
Okay first, I would actually expand in the opposite direction, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with yours.
Circles are Terran bases. Boxes are armies. Now, if Terran secures the watch tower with his whole army, he is already in a dangerous situation as he is too far from his main to properly defend. If he even tries to move to attack, the Zerg army instantly has a ton of different paths to flank, and counter. There is no way you can both attack and defend your own base at the same time. Due to how slow the Terran army is in comparison to a Zerg's, you won't be able to keep up and you will lose.
If this were Starcraft 1, then yeah, Terran would be able to secure the entire high ground with that position, and probably have a safe natural too. In SC2 though, units path a lot better even through smaller chokes, and there is no miss chance going up cliffs.
Now the REASON I would expand the other way is because of the problems I listed above. By expanding to the 1 gas, you keep your army relatively close to your base and you have a viable fourth base to take.
youve seemed to completely ignore my points on these chokes. i guess a better picture will help?
you can see the effect of the size of the chokes in the above. the third can be completely walled off, and the nat area can be walled as well as shown above using any combination of buildings and supply depots. the pink area is the siege tank range and you should start to get an idea of what im talking about with my second point from the previous post. this is another reason why its super safe to expand towards the 2gas rather than the 1gas.
ask yourself, would you as a terran actually run back to try to kill that army? how effective are zerglings when attacking through a funnel like that defended by even 3 siege tanks? well ... any zerg ground unit for that matter. you obviously let your defence deal (delay) with it while you move into the defenceless zerg base? all terrans do this because base race situations always force the zerg to return to defend their paltry amount of and immovable buildings.
I'm sorry but three siege tanks is a huge force to leave behind in the mid-game. Not to mention that any decent Zerg army can break the wall, or with the wall in your picture, go through it. Having been through countless base race situations myself against Terran, I am positive that Zerg will completely destroy Terran in that situation.
ESV Bardiche to me seems like an experimental map, and I won't go into all the problems I think it has in the late game as a176 already has described them quite adequately. I will focus on the early-mid game, which probably will be broken with 111 all-ins from T, and observer + blink rush will probably bring down most players as it seems possible to blink directly into the main when using an obs.
For the 111, the rocks will make it really hard for a zerg as the rush distance will be drastically reduced (although I don't know how large the map is, but it seems small to me) and Terran's 111 definitely have the firepower to bring them down in a few seconds, and the highgrounds just outside the main is a perfect place to put up a soft contain with siege tanks. Finally, the highgrounds at the edge of the map are just awkward, small and tight without any real usage when flanking.
It is an interesting idea, which I've thought about too sometimes, but I think this map needs some more refinement before it will work. Hoping for some good games on it in MotM nonetheless.
I'll start off by saying that I don't favor any of the maps here in particular and I'm not bent out of shape that any particular map did or didn't make it. I also haven't ready a lot of this discussion, but for some reason I was inclined to post this:
I honestly think people are going very overboard with the balance discussion and it sounds and looks like the MotM judging team is falling into the same trap as everyone else. I don't think it will be possible to claim that most maps are balanced or not simply by picking it apart piece by piece, staring at a picture. Maps require hundreds of games to truly get a sense of the balance as the pro players figure out all of the ways to utilize all of the different features.
If PRECISE map balance is ignored for this tournament in favor of just general map balance, it will allow the judges to focus on maps that are PRETTY, UNIQUE, and FUN. If balance issues arise, typically they can be squashed or mitigated by simple readjustments to terrain or resource placement.
In my opinion, when maps for this tournament are analyzed for balance, it should be a relatively simple process, something like this:
1. Is the main 'standard'? IE is it around 27-35 CCs big with a 1 unit ramp or 5 unit choke as the only entrance? 1. Is the rush distance natural to natural over 100? 2. Is the natural securable by all races using some method of fast expand? 3. Does the risk to reward ratio scale up smoothly as you expand to a 3rd/4th? 4. Are there chokes available on the way across the map? 5. Are there open areas available on the way across the map? 6. If there is a gimmick, does the gimmick avoid forcing players into a single strategy or giving one race a particular advantage?
And that is essentially it. Avoid delving further and let the games be PLAYED before deciding that a map is or is not balanced. Adjust features as necessary.
Tal'Darim became popular because it was unique at the time. Bel'Shir Beach became popular because it was beautiful.
But you know what? Both of those maps have gone through revisions and changes over the course of their tournament life. MotM should be finding and honoring maps that are like these; maps with huge potential that might not be ready for prime time. Maps that when people see them, they say 'Wow that looks cool! I want to play on it!'
Nobody ever says 'Wow, that map looks balanced! I want to play on it!'
In that regard, it could be argued that there are too many maps that look fun/unique/cool, but I DON'T think that perceived balance should be the tie-breaker between which is the MOST fun, the MOST unique, the MOST cool.
Think of it this way: Who are we designing maps for? The correct answer is NOT the pros, the answer is THE SPECTATORS. Spectators are the driving force behind this game, and ultimately what is best for the game is not always what is best for the pros, but what is going to keep the spectators interested. I know I was personally excited when the NASL announced that they'd be targeting more interesting maps such as Crossfire. When Bel'Shir Beach was first released I was sure to tune in to some GSL games. Pros hated BOTH of these maps when they came onto the scene due to balance issues, but they helped increase viewership, so they were good for esports.
By worrying about BALANCE too much we are thereby worrying too much about the PROS, when we should be worrying about the spectators.
Leagues will figure out how to strike a balance between satisfying the pros with balanced/well-known maps, and exciting the fans with new and unique maps (such as how NASL and GSL have been doing it).
I have a million more ideas and words to type, but I'll leave this post here and hope that it gets some discussion spinning.
I'll start off by saying that I don't favor any of the maps here in particular and I'm not bent out of shape that any particular map did or didn't make it. I also haven't ready a lot of this discussion, but for some reason I was inclined to post this:
I honestly think people are going very overboard with the balance discussion and it sounds and looks like the MotM judging team is falling into the same trap as everyone else. I don't think it will be possible to claim that most maps are balanced or not simply by picking it apart piece by piece, staring at a picture. Maps require hundreds of games to truly get a sense of the balance as the pro players figure out all of the ways to utilize all of the different features.
If PRECISE map balance is ignored for this tournament in favor of just general map balance, it will allow the judges to focus on maps that are PRETTY, UNIQUE, and FUN. If balance issues arise, typically they can be squashed or mitigated by simple readjustments to terrain or resource placement.
In my opinion, when maps for this tournament are analyzed for balance, it should be a relatively simple process, something like this:
1. Is the main 'standard'? IE is it around 27-35 CCs big with a 1 unit ramp or 5 unit choke as the only entrance? 1. Is the rush distance natural to natural over 100? 2. Is the natural securable by all races using some method of fast expand? 3. Does the risk to reward ratio scale up smoothly as you expand to a 3rd/4th? 4. Are there chokes available on the way across the map? 5. Are there open areas available on the way across the map? 6. If there is a gimmick, does the gimmick avoid forcing players into a single strategy or giving one race a particular advantage?
And that is essentially it. Avoid delving further and let the games be PLAYED before deciding that a map is or is not balanced. Adjust features as necessary.
Tal'Darim became popular because it was unique at the time. Bel'Shir Beach became popular because it was beautiful.
But you know what? Both of those maps have gone through revisions and changes over the course of their tournament life. MotM should be finding and honoring maps that are like these; maps with huge potential that might not be ready for prime time. Maps that when people see them, they say 'Wow that looks cool! I want to play on it!'
Nobody ever says 'Wow, that map looks balanced! I want to play on it!'
In that regard, it could be argued that there are too many maps that look fun/unique/cool, but I DON'T think that perceived balance should be the tie-breaker between which is the MOST fun, the MOST unique, the MOST cool.
Think of it this way: Who are we designing maps for? The correct answer is NOT the pros, the answer is THE SPECTATORS. Spectators are the driving force behind this game, and ultimately what is best for the game is not always what is best for the pros, but what is going to keep the spectators interested. I know I was personally excited when the NASL announced that they'd be targeting more interesting maps such as Crossfire. When Bel'Shir Beach was first released I was sure to tune in to some GSL games. Pros hated BOTH of these maps when they came onto the scene due to balance issues, but they helped increase viewership, so they were good for esports.
By worrying about BALANCE too much we are thereby worrying too much about the PROS, when we should be worrying about the spectators.
Leagues will figure out how to strike a balance between satisfying the pros with balanced/well-known maps, and exciting the fans with new and unique maps (such as how NASL and GSL have been doing it).
I have a million more ideas and words to type, but I'll leave this post here and hope that it gets some discussion spinning.
Good post, spectators should come first in a way, but we still need to think about the players. Your list of guidelines is really good, and it covers most of what I consider a balanced map. The rest is more about the feeling of flow of the layout itself (so called intangibles, I think) and particulars along the lines of: don't have a highground for reapers or drops just behind the main/nat or let siege tanks shell the natural from another platform (some particulars are easier to fix than others).
On the aesthetics, a recommendation to new mappers: Try to avoid the lure to use long straight cliffs and use a varied style instead of the common rectangular paths and platforms. This will improve the aesthetics a lot. (There are maps which can pull it off, like TPW Odyssey (partly straight and angular), but most maps just look simple and basic with many straight cliffs)
PS. I did not imply that Bardiche cannot be fixed, only that it might require several changes to make it work as intended. It is an interesting layout for sure.
On September 20 2011 02:39 wrl wrote: I'll start off by saying that I don't favor any of the maps here in particular and I'm not bent out of shape that any particular map did or didn't make it. I also haven't ready a lot of this discussion, but for some reason I was inclined to post this:
I honestly think people are going very overboard with the balance discussion and it sounds and looks like the MotM judging team is falling into the same trap as everyone else. I don't think it will be possible to claim that most maps are balanced or not simply by picking it apart piece by piece, staring at a picture. Maps require hundreds of games to truly get a sense of the balance as the pro players figure out all of the ways to utilize all of the different features.
If PRECISE map balance is ignored for this tournament in favor of just general map balance, it will allow the judges to focus on maps that are PRETTY, UNIQUE, and FUN. If balance issues arise, typically they can be squashed or mitigated by simple readjustments to terrain or resource placement.
In my opinion, when maps for this tournament are analyzed for balance, it should be a relatively simple process, something like this:
1. Is the main 'standard'? IE is it around 27-35 CCs big with a 1 unit ramp or 5 unit choke as the only entrance? 1. Is the rush distance natural to natural over 100? 2. Is the natural securable by all races using some method of fast expand? 3. Does the risk to reward ratio scale up smoothly as you expand to a 3rd/4th? 4. Are there chokes available on the way across the map? 5. Are there open areas available on the way across the map? 6. If there is a gimmick, does the gimmick avoid forcing players into a single strategy or giving one race a particular advantage?
And that is essentially it. Avoid delving further and let the games be PLAYED before deciding that a map is or is not balanced. Adjust features as necessary.
Tal'Darim became popular because it was unique at the time. Bel'Shir Beach became popular because it was beautiful.
But you know what? Both of those maps have gone through revisions and changes over the course of their tournament life. MotM should be finding and honoring maps that are like these; maps with huge potential that might not be ready for prime time. Maps that when people see them, they say 'Wow that looks cool! I want to play on it!'
Nobody ever says 'Wow, that map looks balanced! I want to play on it!'
In that regard, it could be argued that there are too many maps that look fun/unique/cool, but I DON'T think that perceived balance should be the tie-breaker between which is the MOST fun, the MOST unique, the MOST cool.
Think of it this way: Who are we designing maps for? The correct answer is NOT the pros, the answer is THE SPECTATORS. Spectators are the driving force behind this game, and ultimately what is best for the game is not always what is best for the pros, but what is going to keep the spectators interested. I know I was personally excited when the NASL announced that they'd be targeting more interesting maps such as Crossfire. When Bel'Shir Beach was first released I was sure to tune in to some GSL games. Pros hated BOTH of these maps when they came onto the scene due to balance issues, but they helped increase viewership, so they were good for esports.
By worrying about BALANCE too much we are thereby worrying too much about the PROS, when we should be worrying about the spectators.
Leagues will figure out how to strike a balance between satisfying the pros with balanced/well-known maps, and exciting the fans with new and unique maps (such as how NASL and GSL have been doing it).
I have a million more ideas and words to type, but I'll leave this post here and hope that it gets some discussion spinning.
Actually I am pretty sure that hundreds of games are not required to be playedd to know if a certain map is balanced. Its enough that the judge has watched hundreds of games of starcraft 2. Atleast hundreds of games on maps that have the features of the map that is being judged. Then the judge must know that A+ B = C. Also none really liked the changes blizz made to tal darim. If I remember correctly LSPrime said that the changes ruined the map. Bel shir beaches changes have also got general disapproval if I have followed closely enough. Point is that good maps dont need to be tweaked incase of unbalance since good maps arent unbalanced.
Also new different maps might bring alot of viewers because of the intrest, even if they are not well balanced, They would make the viewers unsatisfied/angry if they are unbalanced and produce resaults viewers didnt want to see.
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote: ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +
Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience.
From a zerg pov,
The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass.
Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg.
Okay first, I would actually expand in the opposite direction, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with yours.
Circles are Terran bases. Boxes are armies. Now, if Terran secures the watch tower with his whole army, he is already in a dangerous situation as he is too far from his main to properly defend. If he even tries to move to attack, the Zerg army instantly has a ton of different paths to flank, and counter. There is no way you can both attack and defend your own base at the same time. Due to how slow the Terran army is in comparison to a Zerg's, you won't be able to keep up and you will lose.
If this were Starcraft 1, then yeah, Terran would be able to secure the entire high ground with that position, and probably have a safe natural too. In SC2 though, units path a lot better even through smaller chokes, and there is no miss chance going up cliffs.
Now the REASON I would expand the other way is because of the problems I listed above. By expanding to the 1 gas, you keep your army relatively close to your base and you have a viable fourth base to take.
youve seemed to completely ignore my points on these chokes. i guess a better picture will help?
you can see the effect of the size of the chokes in the above. the third can be completely walled off, and the nat area can be walled as well as shown above using any combination of buildings and supply depots. the pink area is the siege tank range and you should start to get an idea of what im talking about with my second point from the previous post. this is another reason why its super safe to expand towards the 2gas rather than the 1gas.
ask yourself, would you as a terran actually run back to try to kill that army? how effective are zerglings when attacking through a funnel like that defended by even 3 siege tanks? well ... any zerg ground unit for that matter. you obviously let your defence deal (delay) with it while you move into the defenceless zerg base? all terrans do this because base race situations always force the zerg to return to defend their paltry amount of and immovable buildings.
I'm sorry but three siege tanks is a huge force to leave behind in the mid-game. Not to mention that any decent Zerg army can break the wall, or with the wall in your picture, go through it. Having been through countless base race situations myself against Terran, I am positive that Zerg will completely destroy Terran in that situation.
ESV Bardiche to me seems like an experimental map, and I won't go into all the problems I think it has in the late game as a176 already has described them quite adequately. I will focus on the early-mid game, which probably will be broken with 111 all-ins from T, and observer + blink rush will probably bring down most players as it seems possible to blink directly into the main when using an obs.
For the 111, the rocks will make it really hard for a zerg as the rush distance will be drastically reduced (although I don't know how large the map is, but it seems small to me) and Terran's 111 definitely have the firepower to bring them down in a few seconds, and the highgrounds just outside the main is a perfect place to put up a soft contain with siege tanks. Finally, the highgrounds at the edge of the map are just awkward, small and tight without any real usage when flanking.
It is an interesting idea, which I've thought about too sometimes, but I think this map needs some more refinement before it will work. Hoping for some good games on it in MotM nonetheless.
Really appreaciate all the comments on Bardiche . Thanks for putting thought into it guys .
Nonetheless, I do disagree with a lot of the points. You don't really see any sort of 1/1/1 rush against Zerg. THat's mostly a vs Protoss build. What you do see is marine\tank\medivac pushes. Again, the rush distances ARE short but the fact that there's so many counterattack routes should counterbalance it.
And yeah, blink stalkers is something you deal with on every map.
The highground at the edge of the map isn't really for flanking use. THey're entryways into the two expansions. The real fighting will be going on below that.
On September 20 2011 02:39 wrl wrote: I'll start off by saying that I don't favor any of the maps here in particular and I'm not bent out of shape that any particular map did or didn't make it. I also haven't ready a lot of this discussion, but for some reason I was inclined to post this:
I honestly think people are going very overboard with the balance discussion and it sounds and looks like the MotM judging team is falling into the same trap as everyone else. I don't think it will be possible to claim that most maps are balanced or not simply by picking it apart piece by piece, staring at a picture. Maps require hundreds of games to truly get a sense of the balance as the pro players figure out all of the ways to utilize all of the different features.
If PRECISE map balance is ignored for this tournament in favor of just general map balance, it will allow the judges to focus on maps that are PRETTY, UNIQUE, and FUN. If balance issues arise, typically they can be squashed or mitigated by simple readjustments to terrain or resource placement.
In my opinion, when maps for this tournament are analyzed for balance, it should be a relatively simple process, something like this:
1. Is the main 'standard'? IE is it around 27-35 CCs big with a 1 unit ramp or 5 unit choke as the only entrance? 1. Is the rush distance natural to natural over 100? 2. Is the natural securable by all races using some method of fast expand? 3. Does the risk to reward ratio scale up smoothly as you expand to a 3rd/4th? 4. Are there chokes available on the way across the map? 5. Are there open areas available on the way across the map? 6. If there is a gimmick, does the gimmick avoid forcing players into a single strategy or giving one race a particular advantage?
And that is essentially it. Avoid delving further and let the games be PLAYED before deciding that a map is or is not balanced. Adjust features as necessary.
Tal'Darim became popular because it was unique at the time. Bel'Shir Beach became popular because it was beautiful.
But you know what? Both of those maps have gone through revisions and changes over the course of their tournament life. MotM should be finding and honoring maps that are like these; maps with huge potential that might not be ready for prime time. Maps that when people see them, they say 'Wow that looks cool! I want to play on it!'
Nobody ever says 'Wow, that map looks balanced! I want to play on it!'
In that regard, it could be argued that there are too many maps that look fun/unique/cool, but I DON'T think that perceived balance should be the tie-breaker between which is the MOST fun, the MOST unique, the MOST cool.
Think of it this way: Who are we designing maps for? The correct answer is NOT the pros, the answer is THE SPECTATORS. Spectators are the driving force behind this game, and ultimately what is best for the game is not always what is best for the pros, but what is going to keep the spectators interested. I know I was personally excited when the NASL announced that they'd be targeting more interesting maps such as Crossfire. When Bel'Shir Beach was first released I was sure to tune in to some GSL games. Pros hated BOTH of these maps when they came onto the scene due to balance issues, but they helped increase viewership, so they were good for esports.
By worrying about BALANCE too much we are thereby worrying too much about the PROS, when we should be worrying about the spectators.
Leagues will figure out how to strike a balance between satisfying the pros with balanced/well-known maps, and exciting the fans with new and unique maps (such as how NASL and GSL have been doing it).
I have a million more ideas and words to type, but I'll leave this post here and hope that it gets some discussion spinning.
Actually I am pretty sure that hundreds of games are not required to be playedd to know if a certain map is balanced. Its enough that the judge has watched hundreds of games of starcraft 2. Atleast hundreds of games on maps that have the features of the map that is being judged. Then the judge must know that A+ B = C. Also none really liked the changes blizz made to tal darim. If I remember correctly LSPrime said that the changes ruined the map. Bel shir beaches changes have also got general disapproval if I have followed closely enough. Point is that good maps dont need to be tweaked incase of unbalance since good maps arent unbalanced.
Also new different maps might bring alot of viewers because of the intrest, even if they are not well balanced, They would make the viewers unsatisfied/angry if they are unbalanced and produce resaults viewers didnt want to see.
TL;DR I disagree with everything you said.
Balance of a map is not a simple equation like A+ B = C, different combinations of features result in different results as far as how balance turns out, and the judges aren't the only people have have seen hundreds and hundreds of games. My point was that it is extremely easy to see if a map will be balanced to a level of plus or minus 10% for each matchup, but because of the huge amount of intangibles you can't completely conclude that a map is definitely imbalanced or not. If it has potential, it needs to be given a chance and then maybe tweaked afterwards.
None of these maps we are talking about are balanced so poorly as to give one race an advantage that would be tangible for a typical viewer. Look at how long Crossfire was in/has been in various map pools and how the balance argument about that map ebbed and flowed. (Originally people thought it was hugely overpowered vs Z, but then they realized how ridiculous Mutas were and how much Zergs were abusing that.)
Look also at a map like Metalopolis. That map at first glance, without knowing everything we know about it today, would seem to be horribly balanced with a massively open natural, unrocked golds, super close air positions, etc. Ultimately all of the intangibles and gimmicks add up to a map that people love, feels balanced enough for competitive play, and is fun to watch despite the fact that there are still people claiming it is unbalanced and some stats that would suggest the same.
Map making is like the rest of the game, there's room for standard and fancy playstyles. What would you think of a tournament called "Player of the Month" with only solid players like Idra and no innovative players ? A MotM tournament is jthe same idea but applied to maps.
Now theres an idea... What you you guys think of establishing solid catagories. ie. most solid map, best decorated, most creative layout, etc. Could have 3 spots in most solid/balanced because thats the most important, but i think the other aspects should get some love.
Ignoring that the best maps will have all of these qualities.
I see what you are saying. This actually goes along with what a176 was saying about creativity/uniqueness; I will be continue to be extra careful to not fall into the trap you are describing. For the record, I have been thinking about spectators for a long time :D
I have to apologize for suggesting that all of the judges of even any of them were falling into that trap. They've run a tight ship so far, my only concern is that as long as people are discussing balance first and foremost, I'm worried that they MAY fall into the trap of putting too much emphasis on it.
Your thread was a good read, and it bring up a lot of things people should really keep in mind when developing maps.
This saturday I'm running a tournament on the European server with innovative maps that weren't finalists in Motm #9. It's open to diamond and masters.
The map pool : ESV Taonas by Superouman LOS_Dark Matter by Archvile TPW Damage inc. by Mereel Back to Back by chuky Nightmare Hollow by FoxyMayhem, FenX Stormy Plains by Fen
On September 24 2011 03:43 Meltage wrote: When will this motm be played and when casted?
You'll see xD. Special things happening at the end of this month.
On September 24 2011 04:00 Johanaz wrote: I have fine tuned and polished Tenarsis for your viewing pleasure. Should I submit the file to you guys or has the tournament taken place?
I know you've all seen the TL/Blizzard Mapping contest by now - I can't wait to see what you come up with! This is a huge chance for mappers, and you should focus all your efforts on making the best 3 maps you possibly can to submit to this contest. Unfortunately, this means that MotM #10 will need to be postponed.
We're currently working very hard to organize everything with ESL. But, as you've probably noticed, the past month has been a little busy SC2-wise, and October promises to be even busier. So, what we've decided to do is extend MotM #9 to cover 2 months of time, and have MotM #10 will take place November 1. I believe this works out the best for all the mappers out there.
I'm looking forward to all your excellent submissions in the TL Map Making Contest!
@teamSKYline - just create a custom game on Bnet and search for the map name. They are all on EU, not sure about NA, etc. BTw you never put another map in a map file.. don't you where you got that from. Also, its not polite to DL map fiels and publish them yourself without the author's consent, even if it's possible.
VOD of Map of the Month: October Showmatches is up !
All time map pool is a bad idea anyway. Maps that were considered good some months ago aren't necessarily conidered good now, the game still changes very fast and we don't know how everything plays out or how balance works yet.
On December 02 2011 07:56 Superouman wrote: I noticed that when i search ESV maps, it's hard to find them because many maps pops out as well, i personally can found just several of our maps.
I can only find two maps on NA server when I search "ESV"
There is only one ESV map and a random blizzard map
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TTmFL.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Npcq7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L0Q9d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bZWik.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q3M1K.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dBCJL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TDCpu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/D7v7J.png)
Andrew "Barrin" Chilson![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/flags/uk.png)
Ben "Funcmode" Winkworth![[image loading]](http://skilled.ch/images/flags/ch.png)
Chris "FlopTurnReaver" Widmer![[image loading]](http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9944/korea.gif)
Jonghyun "LSPrime" Weeks 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MvAo9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q9iuU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y9R5D.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TlzFI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FjBbZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YrGqz.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pKeWd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/REQt8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5Ozfg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sv9BMl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3435/steadfastfortressimage.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UC33O.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PolZw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dzP5M.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TXjiA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/18HTF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kUdkN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wvQd1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XmL54.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7U1DV.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/McFTh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vjQew.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0pAR4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ziO2w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nD1Vk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KBNgX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PhODr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iISGg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xgTRx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8cBN3.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rgN3y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Peq8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NIeSZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cABHF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xj6Qa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s7.directupload.net/images/110906/temp/xwh5qsbl.png)
![[image loading]](http://s1.directupload.net/images/110906/temp/84e6u7yr.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/viVxk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9lw80.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.rhizome.org/blog/3637/01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/heYod.jpg)
I like to try to make a lot of "no-no's" theoretically workable. If I had time and motivation I would pretty this up for the contest, but it's going as is. The map thread picture is slightly different because I widened a few ramps just slightly before I published the map. I actually had a completely different idea I wanted to submit but there is no way it is going to be in time for this competition, so instead of letting the opportunity pass, I submit this one.
)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xZMhg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SIRV9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HJcm1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://addictionrecoveryhope.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/rockbottom.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic44/a65c9cf919ba0aede2f956dc602b4b6a.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic44/b4f963b2950ee7f4cb08a9b573e459bc.gif)
Thank you.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aJfnV.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/59fD0.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u34ES.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WtceU.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qy3Xh.gif)
) will be both nice (awesome??? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y4dfY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PvUZ0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/35ax9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cVUFx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EIL6n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fC95E.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E5TnN.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/14Lcs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tpVVj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Af5lh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cqs82.jpg)
