Every mapper dreams of one thing after finishing their magnum opus: for their map to be played and appreciated in the community. In Brood War this dream was only realized by a small group of Korean mappers based out of mapdori and intothemap. Things looked to be headed the same way in SC2; however ESL, MLG and ESV have all embraced non-Korean maps and tried to push them into the mainstream. In particular, Testbug has seen a large amount of competitive play and has set the standard for future maps from the community.
While a map receiving tournament play is highly prized among the mapping community, the holy grail for them is no doubt getting maps onto the Blizzard ladder. Having a map in the ladder pool means tens of thousands of games will be played on the map, and having the opportunity to have maps even considered for ladder play is hugely significant for any hardcore mapper in the community.
What is this about?
Blizzard has set out a goal of including player made maps into the official Blizzard ladder pool, and TeamLiquid is privileged to have the opportunity to help them achieve this goal. And on that note, it is my honor to announce the first ever official TeamLiquid Map Making Competition! The competition will be watched over by Blizzard and the top ranking maps will be considered for use in the official ladder map pool for future ladder seasons. Any selected maps may be altered by Blizzard to comply with ladder pool standards.
What are the rules?
Given that these maps will be considered for ladder play, we realize that every mapper and his dog will want to enter the contest. As such, we are restricting the number of entries per mapper to 3. We feel that 3 allows mappers sufficient opportunity to showcase their work while not overloading our staff with their back-catalogue of work. Attempts to circumvent this rule will result in disqualification and repercussions on TL. Also, no one judging the contest will be allowed to submit maps.
We suggest that you adhere to the following guidelines when creating your maps for the contest:
The contest is open to all maps, including team play maps. However, team play maps cannot win the contest because it is difficult to test them properly. High ranking team play maps will receive honorable mentions and be considered for ladder play.
We suggest maps follow the following restrictions: 1. Normal bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers 2. High yield bases are always 6 high yield patches and 2 normal geysers 3. Don’t change values on Neutral units. For example: a. Don’t change Xel’Naga watch tower or destructible rock graphics b. Don’t change values on mineral patches, geysers, or rock health/armor values c. Don’t resize mineral patches or rocks d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them 4. Map sizes should be sensible, use the current map pool as a guide.
You are welcome to use custom textures, but they shouldn't detract from the clarity of the map
Maps with locked start positions are okay, but preference is given to maps not requiring this
How the map plays out is the most important part of the map. We will also be looking for originality in your maps (i.e. 16 base macro maps will have to be fairly amazing to stand out).
Brood War map duplicates are discouraged, but can certainly be the starting point for a map.
Entries are not limited to non-Koreans, Korean mappers are welcome to submit entries
Don't steal other peoples work and try to claim it as your own, although this should go without saying!
Blizzard has been kind enough to contribute a prize to this tournament. The top five entrants will receive a Razer peripherals package which includes a Marauder StarCraft II Gaming keyboard, Banshee StarCraft II Gaming Headset, Spectre StarCraft II Gaming Mouse and the StarCraft II Zerg Edition Messenger bag. In addition to the Razer peripherals package, winning entry can select one of the following additional prizes; a signed Collector’s Edition of StarCraft 2, a signed Jim Raynor StarCraft 2 cardboard standup and a signed StarCraft II Poster. The second place entry can select one of the remaining two entries, and the third place will be given the remaining entry.
When are the maps due?
Mappers will have until Monday, Oct 31 2:59pm GMT (GMT+00:00) to complete their work and PM it to TL Map Contest.
How does all of this work?
Specially appointed judges from the community and TeamLiquid staff will evaluate the entries and decide on the top maps. We aim to pick approximately 10 maps. This will vary depending on the quality of submissions.
Mappers with maps which have been selected will have approximately a week (possibly less) to make final adjustments to their maps to fix any issues.
The maps will be play tested by an invite only progamer tournament; details will be announced at a later date. Maps will also be uploaded to EU and NA for public testing.
We will then hold a public vote and staff vote to determine the best map. Rankings from the public and staff will be combined to determine the top 5 maps.
We estimate that the contest will conclude anywhere between 3-4 weeks after submissions close.
How to Enter:
Please PM your map(s) files to TL Map Contest with the following format before Monday, Oct 31 2:59pm GMT (GMT+00:00):
Map Name: [.img]a picture of your map[/img] Main to Main distance: Natural to Natural distance: [.img]Any relevant analyzer images (optional)[/img] [.url=]Your maps download link[/url]
Entries not in this format may be excluded from consideration. Please don't ask 'TL Map Contest' questions - you won't get an answer.
If you have any questions about the contest please post them in this thread and I will do my best to answer them.
Q: I'm interested in the contest, but I'm horrible at map making. What can I do to support the mappers?
A: Post in their map threads and give them support, encouragement and replays on their maps! Giving your favourite mapper support will be much appreciated by the mapper.
Best of luck to all entrants, I've been waiting for something like this for so so long, so much talent in the mapmaking community and it's very very difficult to be realised. Even without this, people like TPW and iCCup getting their maps in NASL and MLG respectively are doing great, but having community made ladder maps that are used in all competitive scenes would be a dream come true for many.
Even the worst entry would likely be better than Searing Crater ^^
On September 28 2011 15:23 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Ah this sounds great. Perhaps Blizzard will recognize this and even adapt it into the ladder ^0^
The competition will be watched over by Blizzard and the top ranking maps will be considered for use in the official ladder map pool for future ladder seasons.
I've always loved making maps, it is great to see not only TL, but Blizzard itself stepping up for the map-making community. Three maps per maker is a great number to allow us to showcase our skills. I can't wait to get started!
On September 28 2011 15:29 Magrath wrote: Sorry to post again but I just thought of a question.
These restrictions(minerals patches, gas, etc) are suggested, but will they disqualify a map from winning if not followed?
It greatly reduces the chance of Blizzard using it. When Tal'darim Altar was going through the process of being added, Blizzard refused to publish it as it was unless it had the standard number of mineral patches and gas, which greatly pissed off the creator as I saw in an interview as they were sacrificing balance for the sake of consistency. Eventually the settled on (you guessed it) adding rocks.
On September 28 2011 15:29 Magrath wrote: Sorry to post again but I just thought of a question.
These restrictions(minerals patches, gas, etc) are suggested, but will they disqualify a map from winning if not followed?
Say you make the most amazing map ever which doesn't adhere to the restrictions, it a) makes it less likely that it will be used on the ladder at any point b) means that if it is used, it will be edited to comply with those specs - possibly breaking the map
So I think it's in every mappers best interest to adhere them, but it won't disqualify them though.
Blizzard has set out a goal of including player made maps into the official Blizzard ladder pool, and TeamLiquid is privileged to have the opportunity to help them achieve this goal. And on that note, it is my honor to announce the first ever official TeamLiquid Map Making Competition! The competition will be watched over by Blizzard and the top ranking maps will be considered for use in the official ladder map pool for future ladder seasons. Any selected maps may be altered by Blizzard to comply with ladder pool standards.
I want to highlight this for map makers. It is a pretty damn huge deal if ladder will have some community input to it. On that note, seems like a stupid question BUT I'm going to throw it out anyways...
Do map names matter? Like... does it have to fit into the Lore of SC, or name it "Map 1", "TL Map Entry".
I know i know, it hardly matters, but I'm just curious. I'm a curious guy.
This is exactly what blizzard needs to be doing for maps! Moar i say, moar!
Also, I implore the people behind this to ensure that the winning maps have as few destructible rocks as possible and that none are added if the maps are adjusted for ladder play.
Thanks for the answer. Personally to me having my map played in tournaments is a much bigger honour then having them in the official ladder map pool. Especially if integrity has to be compromised.
Really nice contest. I believe that Daybreak is the best tournament used map at the moment and it always produces really good games. Hopefully a community map can live up to that.
Awesome, This combined with the shorter seasons is definitely heading in the right direction for blizzard as they don't need to have such an investment if a map is only going to be in the pool for 2 months.
I think just how important this is for the future development of SC2 is going to fly over a lot of people's heads. This is fantastic news,actually having good maps that are played in tournaments and the ladder is key for letting us chobos keep up with the pros. I just wish TL approached this with more optimism and actually committed to using these maps for at least a TL SC2 Open.
On September 28 2011 15:47 Fraidnot wrote: I think just how important this is for the future development of SC2 is going to fly over a lot of people's heads. This is fantastic news,actually having good maps that are played in tournaments and the ladder is key for letting us chobos keep up with the pros. I just wish TL approached this with more optimism and actually committed to using these maps for at least a TL SC2 Open.
Plexa wrote: The maps will be play tested by an invite only progamer tournament); details will be announced at a later date. Maps will also be uploaded to EU and NA for public testing.
I hope prodiG gives this a shot, I know he sorta retired from it but his maps were well done, attention to detail. I'll go drop him a message and see if he's interested lol.
This is awesome! I'm really, really glad blizzard is supporting this. Not only is it good for the community, it is good for Blizz's reputation as well ^.^
This is sick. Blizzard listening to the community? Pairing up with TL to do it? Seems like a huge step in the right direction to me! To those who will enter the contest: give your best guys and good luck!
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
Honestly that rule in context makes no sense at all, since nowhere does it stipulate we can't mix textures from different sets, if you're using 8 different textures from 8 different sets, how do you determine which is the applicable LOS blocker?
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
You can't do whatever you want to do with the other doodads - you want to use them as presented in the editor. The reasoning is to keep it consistent with the aesthetics presented in the editor (i.e. as the game was design by blizz).
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
Honestly that rule in context makes no sense at all, since nowhere does it stipulate we can't mix textures from different sets, if you're using 8 different textures from 8 different sets, how do you determine which is the applicable LOS blocker?
Some clarification would be nice.
Use the LOS blockers from the predominant texture; things like dual sight would be considered 'distracting' use of custom textures. But even in that case, there are two clear predominant textures and in each half you use the default LOS blocker. The intention is that modifications to textures are used like on abyssal caverns/nerazim.
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
You can't do whatever you want to do with the other doodads - you want to use them as presented in the editor. The reasoning is to keep it consistent with the aesthetics presented in the editor (i.e. as the game was design by blizz).
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
Honestly that rule in context makes no sense at all, since nowhere does it stipulate we can't mix textures from different sets, if you're using 8 different textures from 8 different sets, how do you determine which is the applicable LOS blocker?
Some clarification would be nice.
Use the LOS blockers from the predominant texture; things like dual sight would be considered 'distracting' use of custom textures. The intention is that modifications to textures are used like on abyssal caverns/nerazim.
Yet you highlight Testbug (one of the most obnoxiously designed maps to date) as setting the standard for future maps from the community? Bit weird, but ok.
This is great news for the map making community, and for everyone in general, because we will be able to pool together the power of the community and harness it for the greater enjoyment of all.
I have two maps already made, working on a 3rd and I'll be eager to post them. What I want to ask though is, how do we measure the distance from main to main and from main to natural?
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
You can't do whatever you want to do with the other doodads - you want to use them as presented in the editor. The reasoning is to keep it consistent with the aesthetics presented in the editor (i.e. as the game was design by blizz).
On September 28 2011 16:15 funcmode wrote:
On September 28 2011 16:12 Sea_Food wrote:
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
Honestly that rule in context makes no sense at all, since nowhere does it stipulate we can't mix textures from different sets, if you're using 8 different textures from 8 different sets, how do you determine which is the applicable LOS blocker?
Some clarification would be nice.
Use the LOS blockers from the predominant texture; things like dual sight would be considered 'distracting' use of custom textures. The intention is that modifications to textures are used like on abyssal caverns/nerazim.
Yet you highlight Testbug (one of the most obnoxiously designed maps to date) as setting the standard for future maps from the community? Bit weird, but ok.
Highlighted because it broke the 'foreign maps are bad, m'kay' stereotype. However, such a map is not suitable for this competition.
On September 28 2011 16:22 Destructicon wrote: This is great news for the map making community, and for everyone in general, because we will be able to pool together the power of the community and harness it for the greater enjoyment of all.
I have two maps already made, working on a 3rd and I'll be eager to post them. What I want to ask though is, how do we measure the distance from main to main and from main to natural?
to make a map takes a lot of skill, i know this is nice prizepool but sad for designers, no real market for them and such a large community~ should be atleast a little money but i know blizzard doesnt like to deal with dollars unless its blizzcon but under the table would be nice to the winner!!! though ill say this its a step in the right direction, just i know blizzard sc2 division understand that community made maps can really help them just hope they realize to what extent, i know in counterstrike, completly other game however they had the same maps for years and it got boring, not because there was not many maps introduced, just none of the new maps rivaled competitive play as the originals did, maps is in my opinion the hardest part of keeping an esport growing since the same play gets stale and it becomes predictable, keep it up blizzard and do even more in this regard plz, never is to much~
Almost all blizzard ladder maps are trash but hopefully that will change now with TL working on them, this is absolutely fantastic, please don't disappoint!
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
You can't do whatever you want to do with the other doodads - you want to use them as presented in the editor. The reasoning is to keep it consistent with the aesthetics presented in the editor (i.e. as the game was design by blizz).
On September 28 2011 16:15 funcmode wrote:
On September 28 2011 16:12 Sea_Food wrote:
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them
Can someone explain me the reasoning for this? I mean we are allowed to do what ever we want to the other doodas but not thsese...
I guess I have to remake my aesthetics AGAIN.
Honestly that rule in context makes no sense at all, since nowhere does it stipulate we can't mix textures from different sets, if you're using 8 different textures from 8 different sets, how do you determine which is the applicable LOS blocker?
Some clarification would be nice.
Use the LOS blockers from the predominant texture; things like dual sight would be considered 'distracting' use of custom textures. The intention is that modifications to textures are used like on abyssal caverns/nerazim.
Yet you highlight Testbug (one of the most obnoxiously designed maps to date) as setting the standard for future maps from the community? Bit weird, but ok.
Highlighted because it broke the 'foreign maps are bad, m'kay' stereotype. However, such a map is not suitable for this competition.
It did? I'd be tempted to argue the opposite (questionable aesthetics, bad map for protoss), but I suppose this isn't the time nor the place. That aside, GL to everyone who enters.
I think I may be more excited for this than just about anything else so far in SC2.
People really underestimate the value of nurturing a map making community to the point where it can constantly pump out fresh, interesting, tournament-quality maps.
Seeing this effort backed by Blizzard gives me confidence that SC2 is going to be around as a top-tier esport for a long time.
Strictly speaking no, but your risk by entering something like that is that if it makes ladder at some point then that probably will be edited and you lose control of the end result.
On September 28 2011 17:48 TAAF wrote: Oh this i gonna be good, hope blizzard sees this and actually incluedes them into the ladder pool. OFC they would but rocks everywhere but still...
I hope that one day people will read the whole post before replying. Sigh.
On September 28 2011 15:36 Skipton wrote: Really nice contest. I believe that Daybreak is the best tournament used map at the moment and it always produces really good games. Hopefully a community map can live up to that.
Speaking of this, could WinparkPrime actually submit Daybreak to this contest?
Oh how I'd love to see that map on ladder... far and away the best tournament map right now.
Im looking forward to the see what maps will come out of this, and if just 1 map actually makes it into the map pool, then that would be such a huge victory for TL.net I think! If not, then hopefully we will see some new maps created by the foreign community that are worth using, instead of just GSL maps. Competition is healthy for even the map makers I think!
Ok, I've sent my first map entry and now I'm working on my other two. Best of luck to everyone participating in the contest, good luck and have fun building maps!
Awesome. I hope the maps will be open for testing, so that the community can help. I don't expect an awful lot of people to join in but at least some is better than none whatsoever.
Well i know having your map used on ladder would be cool but no prize for the winners? So Blizz is like just make us content for our ladder thanks. While it's good since people will design better maps, still seems a bit tight-fisted doesn't it; after what is it, 4.5 million copies sold? Ah well.
I'd like to see that map based on the top of a battlecruiser entered even though its ridiculous and would never get in.
On September 28 2011 19:27 infinity2k9 wrote: Well i know having your map used on ladder would be cool but no prize for the winners? So Blizz is like just make us content for our ladder thanks. While it's good since people will design better maps, still seems a bit tight-fisted doesn't it; after what is it, 4.5 million copies sold? Ah well.
I'd like to see that map based on the top of a battlecruiser entered even though its ridiculous and would never get in.
Seriously people, read the OP.
Blizzard has been kind enough to contribute a prize to this tournament. The top five entrants will receive a Razer peripherals package which includes a Marauder StarCraft II Gaming keyboard, Banshee StarCraft II Gaming Headset, Spectre StarCraft II Gaming Mouse and the StarCraft II Zerg Edition Messenger bag. In addition to the Razer peripherals package, winning entry can select one of the following additional prizes; a signed Collector’s Edition of StarCraft 2, a signed Jim Raynor StarCraft 2 cardboard standup and a signed StarCraft II Poster. The second place entry can select one of the remaining two entries, and the third place will be given the remaining entry.
The prizes are nice and all but the real prize is getting your map in the ladder pool. That is what matters to the map makers. No map maker will complain about the rewards, I can asure you that!
On September 28 2011 20:03 thee telescopes wrote: Someone should tell whoever made Daybreak about this.
Yeah, let's give the already critically acclaimed korean mappers even more exposure, screw the non-korean mappers still trying to make a name for themselves! ><
Ah, this is great. I'm looking forward to seeing all of the entries. I enjoy trying out custom made maps, but finding them is an absolute nightmare in-game.
On September 28 2011 19:12 funcmode wrote: Who are the judges by the way? Or is it a secret?
At the moment its mostly undecided, that is because I want to see which mappers take up this challenge and which do not. I should have an idea around mid-october.
One more question, on requirements, you stated that we are not allowed to modify the size of mineral patches or destructible rocks. However are we allowed to modify the size of certain doodads for more esthetic purposes?
Say I want to make some rocks bigger, note also that I don't plan to use big doodads in the middle of the map, just around the edges for beautification.
this is crazy to me, I want some of those professional map makers from the gsl to enter and show blizzard how to make real maps! also surprised they didn't say you must have 7 locations with destructible rocks in random locations as a rule. Bitches Love Destructible Rocks!
On September 28 2011 20:46 Destructicon wrote: One more question, on requirements, you stated that we are not allowed to modify the size of mineral patches or destructible rocks. However are we allowed to modify the size of certain doodads for more esthetic purposes?
Yes, in fact when you're placing these doodads theyre randomly scaled
Hoping to see some of the MotM entrants in this as well. :D
Accepting 3 maps per mapper is very generous. You can submit
- your best work to date - re-purpose an old failed project - create a completely new map from scratch
all in the same competition. I think that's usually the hardest part when a mapper has to decide upon which route to take for a submission from his portfolio.
@Bobster I also think having three entries means entrants are more willing to try some more unorthodox concepts which means we might see some real creativity in the maps. If the entries were restricted to one then I suspect people would play it safe.
On September 28 2011 20:03 thee telescopes wrote: Someone should tell whoever made Daybreak about this.
Yeah, let's give the already critically acclaimed korean mappers even more exposure, screw the non-korean mappers still trying to make a name for themselves! ><
I don't think this is a 'popularity contest'. If those 'non-korean mappers strill trying to make a name for themselves' make the best maps, they'll get noticed. If their maps aren't as good as the ones made by the 'critically acclaimed korean mappers', then why should they win? I think the end goal is for the ladder to have good maps, and for Blizzard to at least open their minds when it comes to the map pool.
This is a great opportunity for the community, and something that should have happened a long time ago.
On September 28 2011 20:57 Plexa wrote: @Bobster I also think having three entries means entrants are more willing to try some more unorthodox concepts which means we might see some real creativity in the maps. If the entries were restricted to one then I suspect people would play it safe.
That's a very good point as well.
I'm definitely looking forward to see the top ten finishers.
This is like an officially sanctioned Blizzard MotM. :D
On September 28 2011 20:03 Archvil3 wrote: The prizes are nice and all but the real prize is getting your map in the ladder pool. That is what matters to the map makers. No map maker will complain about the rewards, I can asure you that!
Some time ago I saw a beautiful map on PlayXP. However it's totally gimmicky and would not fit in the current set of maps, so would it be ok for me to take that map as a starting point and try to make it somewhat more of map that could be used competitively?
I'm curious if its' considered stealing, if someone could explain me how to work with the PlayXP forums a little bit I could probably ask the person who originally made the map for his permission.
On September 28 2011 21:36 EffectS wrote: Some time ago I saw a beautiful map on PlayXP. However it's totally gimmicky and would not fit in the current set of maps, so would it be ok for me to take that map as a starting point and try to make it somewhat more of map that could be used competitively?
I'm curious if its' considered stealing, if someone could explain me how to work with the PlayXP forums a little bit I could probably ask the person who originally made the map for his permission.
The point of that is because I don't want people to be claiming, say some work by funcmode (), as their own when it isn't theirs you can use that as a starting point, sure.
On September 28 2011 21:37 neobowman wrote: I dislike the concept of forcing set amounts of minerals and gas for every base. Interferes with balance for pretty much no reason at all.
Conversely, Blizzard are trying to maintain some level of control over the maps on the ladder so they can balance the game. If we are creating maps which provide a more reasonable balance for the game with specific map designs then Blizzard can't balance the game properly as that map would skew win rates - hence the standardisation.
On September 28 2011 21:39 Macpo wrote: how can the crowd see the maps before the contest? Can we admire them somewhere?
You will definitely see the final 10 or so maps, any entries before then will have to be posted here by the authors. I might post some of the entrants at the half way point though.
On September 28 2011 21:39 Macpo wrote: how can the crowd see the maps before the contest? Can we admire them somewhere?
We from TPW will most probably post our submissions in this thread or something similar when we get close to being done with our maps. Currently we haven't even decided upon which maps we should enter and we also need to fix or improve most of them, especially the maps which are old or incomplete.
This is extremely awesome news! I had already given up -any- hope that TL and Blizzard would support player made maps, so this comes as a pleasant surprise
I have to be honest and say that I am a bit annoyed by the standard bases restriction. I feel like Blizz should really accept that 6min+1gas bases are a standard in the future. Many concepts for maps work way better (or only) with these half bases.
I was also a bit worried that with these restrictions in place everyone would play it even more safe than usual and not use any interesting features or innovative layouts at all, fearing that that would be negative for the map but this:
On September 28 2011 20:57 Plexa wrote: @Bobster I also think having three entries means entrants are more willing to try some more unorthodox concepts which means we might see some real creativity in the maps. If the entries were restricted to one then I suspect people would play it safe.
is just very good thinking and seems you are open towards creativity. I love it!
gl hf for all the mapmakers!
p.s.: Please ask Morrow if he wants to be a judge. Only progamer who has been mapping in the past (and was really innovative with his maps) and he also plays 2 races :O Sounds like a perfect judge^^
On September 28 2011 21:37 neobowman wrote: I dislike the concept of forcing set amounts of minerals and gas for every base. Interferes with balance for pretty much no reason at all.
Conversely, Blizzard are trying to maintain some level of control over the maps on the ladder so they can balance the game. If we are creating maps which provide a more reasonable balance for the game with specific map designs then Blizzard can't balance the game properly as that map would skew win rates - hence the standardisation.
I don't want to start a discussion here but I'm sure it's easy to make a map that "skews winrates" without changing any mineral/gas counts whatsoever. I think that for now we shouldn't change the main ressources and maybe having 5, 6,7 or 8 mins at bases is a bit confusing. But surely Blizz could establish 6min+1gas bases as a standard without a problem. Most of the GSL maps have one gas bases without breaking balance or anything. My point and probably neobowman's as well is that many concepts for maps don't work (as well) if you can only have full bases.
The definition of creativity here though is somewhat up in the air. Custom maps have evolved much faster than major tournaments have adopted them, so some things that I or many other mapmakers would now consider standard is still - in context with the ladder/typical-major-tournament map pool - quite original/creative.
I think many of the posts regarding innovation vs solid, proven concepts in the MotM#9 thread are very relevant here, I guess the general summary being creativity is only a good thing when it improves the core concept of the map, rather than just being different for the sake of being different.
This contest is pretty awesome. I remember during the beta when the map editor came out and a lot of people posted very sweet looking maps. I am glad Blizzard is chipping into something that hopefully brings back the map of the month contest they used to do in the early days of sc and bw. Good luck to you map makers!
On September 28 2011 22:58 Sina92 wrote: "4. Map sizes should be sensible, use the current map pool as a guide." ..... I think the community wishes for larger maps.
Anyhow, this is pretty nice.
I'm pretty sure its just a "use your best judgement" for map sizes. You don't need to max out the map size to make it good. Most will probably be slightly larger, but within reason.
On September 28 2011 22:58 Sina92 wrote: "4. Map sizes should be sensible, use the current map pool as a guide." ..... I think the community wishes for larger maps.
Anyhow, this is pretty nice.
I'm pretty sure its just a "use your best judgement" for map sizes. You don't need to max out the map size to make it good. Most will probably be slightly larger, but within reason.
Also, the ladder maps are all plenty big. TalDarim is the biggest map to date. So its not bigger maps "we" want- its more macro oriented maps if anything.
This competition is incredible! Very motivating to be considered for the ladder.
On September 28 2011 15:57 AnxiousHippo wrote: Don't forget ye rocks
I didn't know Dustin Browder had a TL.net account! lol
Can't wait for the maps to come out of this. TL has some amazing map makers and I hope they finally get a chance to get some wider recognition on the ladder.
For people complaining about the restriction, remember that most of the people playing on your map if it makes it into the pool won't be Grandmaster players or even be on TL. This is why some things have to be standard, the guy in bronze doesn't understand when there are less patches at a base or they have less in them, the same goes for weirdly looking Xelnaga towers or High yield gas.
You may want the game balanced for the top level of players, but the map pool needs to accommodate every skill range, and fit well with the existing maps.
Question, can submitted maps be edited? Say a map is submitted but later the submitter finds out it has a bug or he thinks of a great improvement. Can we PM a replacement map, telling which of the previous it is to replace?
I'm disappointed that Blizzard feels that anything but 8 mineral patches at an expo is too confusing for players to figure out, but I'm excited that they're taking input from the community.
Edited to add one question:
Are you allowed to fiddle around with the HP of destructible rocks? Because it strikes me that 5000 (or whatever) hp is not always going to be the correct number on those for balance. Making them always have the same amount of HP/armor takes what could be a flexible tool and turns it into a blunt instrument.
On September 29 2011 00:17 Kevan wrote: How hard is it to learn mapmaking? Any good newbie guides?
Note: I´m not expecting to be able to create a real map for quite some time.
At its worst, it can be a nightmare. You think you have a decent map rolling and you'll find 101 flaws. After a few hours and you've fixed most of them, you find another 101 you missed and another 20 that came with the fixes. Then if you want to make any significant alterations to the layout after starting the visuals of the map you generally have to destroy and remake details that took ages just to move something or increase the size of the map. Not to mention the difficulty of using up space in a decent manner, working out battle flow, balance quirks and learning how big ramps and spaces should be.
However, it's amazing fun to try things out, and really satisfying to get ideas into a playable form. Mapping is a bit of a journey, just like getting any good at the game in the first place.
Definitely a good, wholesome kind of difficult. Just look at individuals' (not winners) maps change and improve over consecutive map of the month competitions.
Good luck to all the TL'ers I'm sure with all the talent on this site there will be amazing entries. Would love to see another 2 position 1v1 map in the pool they are fun to play
Looks like I have a real reason to start up that map editor.
On September 29 2011 00:24 GeorgeForeman wrote: This contest is awesome.
I'm disappointed that Blizzard feels that anything but 8 mineral patches at an expo is too confusing for players to figure out, but I'm excited that they're taking input from the community.
Edited to add one question:
Are you allowed to fiddle around with the HP of destructible rocks? Because it strikes me that 5000 (or whatever) hp is not always going to be the correct number on those for balance. Making them always have the same amount of HP/armor takes what could be a flexible tool and turns it into a blunt instrument.
Because Blizzard doesn't balance the game with gimmicky expansions?
I can't wait to see what our talented community comes up with for this competition. Small semi related question, I noticed testbug was mentioned in the opening , are the rocks they have that block minerals but not the expansion location itself usable in this? I don't make maps myself but I'd love to see more maps with those sorts of rocks since blizzard demands rocks anyways.
On September 29 2011 00:24 GeorgeForeman wrote: This contest is awesome.
I'm disappointed that Blizzard feels that anything but 8 mineral patches at an expo is too confusing for players to figure out, but I'm excited that they're taking input from the community.
Edited to add one question:
Are you allowed to fiddle around with the HP of destructible rocks? Because it strikes me that 5000 (or whatever) hp is not always going to be the correct number on those for balance. Making them always have the same amount of HP/armor takes what could be a flexible tool and turns it into a blunt instrument.
On September 28 2011 15:20 Plexa wrote: b. Don’t change values on mineral patches, geysers, or rock health/armor values
On September 29 2011 00:17 Kevan wrote: How hard is it to learn mapmaking? Any good newbie guides?
Note: I´m not expecting to be able to create a real map for quite some time.
It's not that hard to make some simple stuff in the editor, it just takes a lot of time to figure out all the little things and also how to do nice aesthetical work. You can find a lot of awesomeness in the Mapmaking Links Compilation. Generally people tend to be pretty helpful in the Custon Maps forum if you're interested in mapmaking, definitly check it out^^
EDIT: About all the questions wheter this or that feature is allowed etc. I guess a good rule of thumb is: If you haven't seen it on a Blizzard map, it's probably a good thing not to use it.
Conversely, Blizzard are trying to maintain some level of control over the maps on the ladder so they can balance the game. If we are creating maps which provide a more reasonable balance for the game with specific map designs then Blizzard can't balance the game properly as that map would skew win rates - hence the standardisation.
I thought they said it was because they didn't want anything to confuse casual players on the ladder. Hasn't telling tournaments to make their own maps already messed this up they can't balance for the GSL and ladder at the same time with the different map pools what is the standard? Even without changing minerals maps can really effect balance.
the guy in bronze doesn't understand when there are less patches at a base or they have less in them,
I'm also surprised by how many people think there is a large number of people playing this game who can't understand that they have less of something when there is less of something.(there are lots of different mineral sizes in single player did anybody complain it was confusing?) Or that if they can't it will be the one thing that will completely ruin the game for them instead of any other thing in the game they might not understand. Does anyone have any evidence of a bronze playing a map with different minerals (against a similarly skilled bronze) and it ruining all the fun he would have had on a ladder map? What if the loading screen told them to watch out for the base with less minerals?
This is so awesome. I'm really happy to hear about Blizzard finally taking some interest in having the public make some ladder maps. Hopefully this will perturbatively change the standards of a ladder map so that they're closer to being appropriate for tournaments. I don't think one contest can do this, but maybe great success from this one can lead to more opportunities.
This doesn't sound very cool at all. "considered" and "may be changed" are pretty discouraging to me right away. Not going to bother, because they pretty clearly still are not interested in letting us dictate what are good maps without them interfering with it like those annoying tournament admins who do n't have a clue how to run things or what maps to pick yet simply insist on throwing their weight around, despite incompetence that has been much talked about. This just seems like "we listen to the players" PR to me.
I mean, lol. Blizzard ladder map pool standards? While they insist on keeping close spawn shattered in, and left close spawn metal in for ages. Thumbs down and a fart noise for Blizzard on this matter.
Conversely, Blizzard are trying to maintain some level of control over the maps on the ladder so they can balance the game. If we are creating maps which provide a more reasonable balance for the game with specific map designs then Blizzard can't balance the game properly as that map would skew win rates - hence the standardisation.
I thought they said it was because they didn't want anything to confuse casual players on the ladder. Hasn't telling tournaments to make their own maps already messed this up they can't balance for the GSL and ladder at the same time with the different map pools what is the standard? Even without changing minerals maps can really effect balance.
the guy in bronze doesn't understand when there are less patches at a base or they have less in them,
I'm also surprised by how many people think there is a large number of people playing this game who can't understand that they have less of something when there is less of something.(there are lots of different mineral sizes in single player did anybody complain it was confusing?) Or that if they can't it will be the one thing that will completely ruin the game for them instead of any other thing in the game they might not understand. Does anyone have any evidence of a bronze playing a map with different minerals (against a similarly skilled bronze) and it ruining all the fun he would have had on a ladder map? What if the loading screen told them to watch out for the base with less minerals?
They said they balance by the number of bases and not by the number of mineral patches. I've tried looking for the source of this, but I couldn't find it. I'm sure it was David Kim who said it.
It's ridiculous to expect balance across all mineral patch combos anyways. For the purpose of balance, they likely want to keep the number of variables down. Tournaments that mess with it do so at their own risk.
I feel like with all of the people asking how difficult it is to make maps I should shamelessly plug introduce some of you to an upcoming show starting on Sunday - MapCraft: State of the Terrain where I will be teaching Versailles how to make maps as well as discuss some map-related topics. More info in the thread but it will be a great resource to learn your way around the editor if it's something you're looking to get into!
Blizzard's ladder map guidelines are waaaay up there on the list of most retarded things conceived by otherwise intelligent people.
People are pretty fucking retarded yes, this is true, but they are playing equally stupid opponents so its not actually gonna have much of an impact --
the guy in bronze doesn't understand when there are less patches at a base or they have less in them,
I'm also surprised by how many people think there is a large number of people playing this game who can't understand that they have less of something when there is less of something.(there are lots of different mineral sizes in single player did anybody complain it was confusing?) Or that if they can't it will be the one thing that will completely ruin the game for them instead of any other thing in the game they might not understand. Does anyone have any evidence of a bronze playing a map with different minerals (against a similarly skilled bronze) and it ruining all the fun he would have had on a ladder map? What if the loading screen told them to watch out for the base with less minerals?
Blizzard has stated that they want people to decide their strategies on how many bases they have, not how many mineral paths they have. SC2 is already a hard game, they dont want to mess with lowbies heads with additional info like varying mineral path counts. Also, its very possible to make unique maps without the balancing tool of varying mineral path/geyser counts of bases.
Awesome... I really hope i can find some time to finish some maps i've been working on (although i'm afraid iwon't have any time left due to my full time job and "redecorating my home"-activities).
I wish it was 10 years ago... in all likelyhood i would have been more active with mapmaking and the mapmaking community and actually know people to test the map(s) before submitting it. :\
This is so sweet! It's really a landmark for Blizzard..hopefully a big stepping stone to eventually having a lot more community-made maps on the ladder.
While I'm very excited to see the very cool maps that will come out of this competition, I think that I'm most excited to see Blizzard working so closely with the TL community! Hopefully they'll continue to do so.
On September 28 2011 21:37 neobowman wrote: I dislike the concept of forcing set amounts of minerals and gas for every base. Interferes with balance for pretty much no reason at all.
Conversely, Blizzard are trying to maintain some level of control over the maps on the ladder so they can balance the game. If we are creating maps which provide a more reasonable balance for the game with specific map designs then Blizzard can't balance the game properly as that map would skew win rates - hence the standardisation.
I understand that Blizz may be trying to set a standard, but gas and minerals at expansions play just as big of a part in the map as the terrain. Crevasse with a full backdoor expansion is entirely different from what it is normally. Similarly, destructible rocks are absolutely crucial to how a map functions. For example, with the d-rock they put on Tal'Darim's third, now Zerg can't play agressively with units in a forward position while expanding to that location (Granted, it isn't much of an issue with Tal'Darim since FE is so popular).
Any selected maps may be altered by Blizzard to comply with ladder pool standards.
[image blocked]
Still excited! ProdiG gonna give it a shot? I might even bother fiddling with the thing. Maybe Barrin? ;D
This is so sadly true
I'm sure that even if the community produces a great map (which they will <3) and Blizzard actually puts it into the ladder pool, they'll just throw a plethora of destructible rocks down just to piss everybody off.
Also, I really don't understand why it's against fixed spawn locations. Isn't the problem with a lot of Blizzard maps the fact that they don't have fixed spawn points so you wind up with close spawns Metal or ST? And who honestly doesn't like Shakuras (the one map with fixed spawns...)?
This competition could be great, but knowing Blizzard they'll just shrink the winning maps down to half size to create "rush" maps and throw destructible rocks everywhere.
Also, I really don't understand why it's against fixed spawn locations. Isn't the problem with a lot of Blizzard maps the fact that they don't have fixed spawn points so you wind up with close spawns Metal or ST? And who honestly doesn't like Shakuras (the one map with fixed spawns...)?
Maps balanced around not fixing spawns are preferred.
This is in Blizzard's own interest, really. Having to design, balance and test 3-4 new maps for each new season (and still get torn apart by the TL community for the effort) is a strain on the team that's not necessary. Just let the community do their job for them and save time, money and headaches. :p
Blizzard has set out a goal of including player made maps into the official Blizzard ladder pool, and TeamLiquid is privileged to have the opportunity to help them achieve this goal.
Does this mean that blizzard asked for TL to help or TL knows that Blizzard has said they want to include player made maps and are just taking the initiative. Kinda like how Tal'darim got into the ladder pool?
Blizzard has set out a goal of including player made maps into the official Blizzard ladder pool, and TeamLiquid is privileged to have the opportunity to help them achieve this goal.
Does this mean that blizzard asked for TL to help or TL knows that Blizzard has said they want to include player made maps and are just taking the initiative. Kinda like how Tal'darim got into the ladder pool?
Well it is a goal of theirs, but for this contest they approached us.
Okay, this is my official foray into SC2 mapmaking. I'm a professional product designer, but haven't taken the plunge into maps yet. This has been a design itch I've been dying to scratch for a year now.
I am curious. If I use a custom tile set that doesn't conform to any of the standard texture sets does this make the map likely ineligible for the Blizzard map pool? Also if your texture set doesn't conform to a standard texture set how will the LOS blockers rule apply?
This map contest is awesome. I think I will try to attempt to make a melee map or two for once.
On September 29 2011 08:08 Imperfect1987 wrote: I am curious. If I use a custom tile set that doesn't conform to any of the standard texture sets does this make the map likely ineligible for the Blizzard map pool? Also if your texture set doesn't conform to a standard texture set how will the LOS blockers rule apply?
This map contest is awesome. I think I will try to attempt to make a melee map or two for once.
1) If the map is really well liked and chosen for ladder, any texturing problems will be corrected by blizzard 2) Use the LOS blocker associated with the predominant texture of the map.
On September 29 2011 08:14 RezChi wrote: Why don't they just freaken use GSL maps arggghh
You realise that they would need to be edited for use on the ladder, resulting in two versions (GSL and Ladder) with the ladder version eventually taking priority? That can't be good for anyone.
I think there should be a bias toward 2-player maps on the part of the makers. So, if they choose a winner, it's more likely to be a 2 spawn map, which there is only 1 of at this moment in the pool. XNC would either get replaced, which isn't entirely a bad thing, or we have more than 1 2-spawn map again.
Of course, I care more about seeing a cool new map to play on than my initial scouting. Just a thought. I think it's cool that Blizzard has finally approached a well established community for new maps. Great idea there.
On September 29 2011 08:24 MisfortuneS Ghost wrote: I think there should be a bias toward 2-player maps on the part of the makers. So, if they choose a winner, it's more likely to be a 2 spawn map, which there is only 1 of at this moment in the pool. XNC would either get replaced, which isn't entirely a bad thing, or we have more than 1 2-spawn map again.
Of course, I care more about seeing a cool new map to play on than my initial scouting. Just a thought. I think it's cool that Blizzard has finally approached a well established community for new maps. Great idea there.
I definitely agree that right now a two player map is more desirable than a four-player map. The ladder pool and most tournament pools strongly favor four player maps, mostly because making a great two player map is much harder. We'll see if other maps makers (and possibly Blizzard) agree.
@Plexa I hava a question if I'm using only Tyrador for the tileset a map that doesn't have any LoS blocker or any doodad, so does it give me the right to use it that will look good on my map? (map is going to be submitted to MoTM#10 that was sadly postpone)
Also LoS map making team will also participate and we are deciding which map we are going to submit for this Contest (which is awesome).
On September 29 2011 09:56 Icetoad wrote: @Plexa I hava a question if I'm using only Tyrador for the tileset a map that doesn't have any LoS blocker or any doodad, so does it give me the right to use it that will look good on my map? (map is going to be submitted to MoTM#10 that was sadly postpone)
Also LoS map making team will also participate and we are deciding which map we are going to submit for this Contest (which is awesome).
So be ready TPW and ESV
Wouldn't Tyrador use the same City/Space platform ones as other maps? I think it should be the same as Korhal, as far as curtain goes.
Wouldn't Tyrador use the same City/Space platform ones as other maps? I think it should be the same as Korhal, as far as curtain goes.
Well if I used the korhal then it will look completly out of place, making really bad looking . Right now I'm using Agria and Tarsonis LoSB which really looks good. LoSB touches the gameplay and the aesthetic of the map and I'm sure all player won't have any problem making the difference if they are LoSB or not (are player that dumb?) In term of aesthetic, I thinks it's better to look better than not looking good. Smoke on grass doesn't really look good.
Also, I really don't understand why it's against fixed spawn locations. Isn't the problem with a lot of Blizzard maps the fact that they don't have fixed spawn points so you wind up with close spawns Metal or ST? And who honestly doesn't like Shakuras (the one map with fixed spawns...)?
Maps balanced around not fixing spawns are preferred.
I suppose that if you're creating a new map, then that makes sense. If you can avoid Shattered Temple close spawns all together on your map it's better than having forced spawns preventing it.
But seriously, Blizzard why on earth do close spawns on maps like Temple exist??
Also, I really don't understand why it's against fixed spawn locations. Isn't the problem with a lot of Blizzard maps the fact that they don't have fixed spawn points so you wind up with close spawns Metal or ST? And who honestly doesn't like Shakuras (the one map with fixed spawns...)?
Maps balanced around not fixing spawns are preferred.
I suppose that if you're creating a new map, then that makes sense. If you can avoid Shattered Temple close spawns all together on your map it's better than having forced spawns preventing it.
But seriously, Blizzard why on earth do close spawns on maps like Temple exist??
They exist because Shattered was poorly designed. When creating a reflection symmetry map the close ground positions are admittedly hard to avoid without skewing the rest of the spawns unless your mains are directly in the corner like Kulas Ravine.
awesome intitiative by blizzard. It's really about time they did something like this, but it's good to know they listen even though it takes a time to get the ball rolling.
I want to participate (and I probably will) but I have a feeling we could just as well say "grats LSprime/Jackyprime" right now...
Wouldn't Tyrador use the same City/Space platform ones as other maps? I think it should be the same as Korhal, as far as curtain goes.
Well if I used the korhal then it will look completly out of place, making really bad looking . Right now I'm using Agria and Tarsonis LoSB which really looks good. LoSB touches the gameplay and the aesthetic of the map and I'm sure all player won't have any problem making the difference if they are LoSB or not (are player that dumb?) In term of aesthetic, I thinks it's better to look better than not looking good. Smoke on grass doesn't really look good.
Oh, I was thinking of Tyrador in the context of city. I think it's labeled as "urban" and in the campaign it is very much a city with much less grass and dirt (much like Metalopalis.) I'll be interested to see a version with more grass and dirt and less city, although I'm not sure how to solve your problem.
Really, though, even Blizzard doesn't stick to the same tileset when it comes to doodads. I think there's a 4v4 map that's Tyrador or Korhal and has Agria Trees, for instance. They always seem to mix it up, and have even used different cliffs than default. Since Tyrador doesn't have any of it's own, I'm sure you're safe to use whatever looks good.
Please, for the love of Pete, someone make a non-blue or green map. Let's see some old fashioned badlands/desert/redsand in there. We have enough dark blue maps right now.
Also, thanks and props to Blizzard for initiating this! We love you guys, and hope this happens many times in the future.
On September 29 2011 12:48 Quotidian wrote: awesome intitiative by blizzard. It's really about time they did something like this, but it's good to know they listen even though it takes a time to get the ball rolling.
I want to participate (and I probably will) but I have a feeling we could just as well say "grats LSprime/Jackyprime" right now...
Daybreak was created by winpark tho, I think that's a noteworthy map
edit: You should definitely not count out ESV, TPW and LoS, they have some great mapmakers who can produce maps that are on the same level.
This is amazing. I've always looked at these gorgeous maps here and WISHED I could play them on ladder. Now we might finally have a chance. =D JOY. And props to the TL mapmaking community... I lurk these forums all the time just to check out all your works of art!
dont have a chance at this...but its still fun to try, AND this will be the first map i actually cared to finish after starting an insane number of them.
You can basically calculate the number of squares with the worker time.
For the main to main time:
Start with your worker from the position of the main building, take the time it needs to get to where the other main building would be. Multiply the seconds with 3.75 and you'll have the approximate square number. So if your worker needs 42.7 seconds, the number is ~160.
For the nat to nat time:
Start with your worker from a mineral patch from about the middle of your natural mineral line. Take the time it needs to get to the other naturals mineral patch (same one obviously). Multiply the seconds with 3.85. Not gonna make another example^^
So this is not gonna get you exactly what you'd get from the analyzer, but it's pretty close and in the end you don't really need the exact number anyway. I made several tries and those numbers are as close as I could get to a good formula.
On October 02 2011 08:59 DarkDolphin wrote: someone tell the Guy who makes GSL maps to submit his maps, and we make a plan to get GSL maps to the ladder pool once and for all, GG :D
I have one last question, can we retract a previously submitted map? Say I posted a map on Monday but I've changed my mind about it and decided I want to make a new one.
Last MotM had some wonderful feedback on the submissions from the judges. Is there any possibility us mappers might get something similar from the judges of this contest? I'm not a particularly experienced mapper and I got so much enjoyment out of learning where I made mistakes on my last map that I spent a whole week fired up and working pretty much fulltime on a map for this competition.
While basically all of the attention is going to be focused on the top 5 (and likely deservedly so), I'm confident it would hugely encourage the extra community who are partaking in this competition to remain active in the mapmaking field in future if all the serious entries which didn't make it could get, maybe not necessarily detailed feedback like before (I'm aware the number of entries is likely to be a lot higher than motm) but hopefully a few key notes on what worked and what didn't (maybe some kind of scoresheet? I don't know how you rate the maps). It would be amazing to see how far off you were from being part of the top 5, it would show all the entrants that TL really want to support new map making talent, that the contest isn't just for the benefit of the mapping teams, and by showing people where to best spend their effort on improving their next map it ensures that the competition can only get better and better.
On October 03 2011 05:56 totalpigeon wrote: Last MotM had some wonderful feedback on the submissions from the judges. Is there any possibility us mappers might get something similar from the judges of this contest? I'm not a particularly experienced mapper and I got so much enjoyment out of learning where I made mistakes on my last map that I spent a whole week fired up and working pretty much fulltime on a map for this competition.
While basically all of the attention is going to be focused on the top 5 (and likely deservedly so), I'm confident it would hugely encourage the extra community who are partaking in this competition to remain active in the mapmaking field in future if all the serious entries which didn't make it could get, maybe not necessarily detailed feedback like before (I'm aware the number of entries is likely to be a lot higher than motm) but hopefully a few key notes on what worked and what didn't (maybe some kind of scoresheet? I don't know how you rate the maps). It would be amazing to see how far off you were from being part of the top 5, it would show all the entrants that TL really want to support new map making talent, that the contest isn't just for the benefit of the mapping teams, and by showing people where to best spend their effort on improving their next map it ensures that the competition can only get better and better.
Quoting because it's a good idea. And woahhhh, when did this get stickied?
You can't expect them to do writeups on 100 maps or more. Especially since many of them will be made by rather new people who can still get a lot of good feedback by making a mapthread.
On October 03 2011 05:56 totalpigeon wrote: Last MotM had some wonderful feedback on the submissions from the judges. Is there any possibility us mappers might get something similar from the judges of this contest? I'm not a particularly experienced mapper and I got so much enjoyment out of learning where I made mistakes on my last map that I spent a whole week fired up and working pretty much fulltime on a map for this competition.
While basically all of the attention is going to be focused on the top 5 (and likely deservedly so), I'm confident it would hugely encourage the extra community who are partaking in this competition to remain active in the mapmaking field in future if all the serious entries which didn't make it could get, maybe not necessarily detailed feedback like before (I'm aware the number of entries is likely to be a lot higher than motm) but hopefully a few key notes on what worked and what didn't (maybe some kind of scoresheet? I don't know how you rate the maps). It would be amazing to see how far off you were from being part of the top 5, it would show all the entrants that TL really want to support new map making talent, that the contest isn't just for the benefit of the mapping teams, and by showing people where to best spend their effort on improving their next map it ensures that the competition can only get better and better.
Quoting because it's a good idea. And woahhhh, when did this get stickied?
I agree with Flop that doing write-ups on potentially 100+ maps is almost impossible. Let alone 30 was hard for the MotM judges.
I'm well aware of the fact that there are likely to be a huge number of entries, so I'm not expecting anything like the level of advice I got before (which I was really grateful for, believe me). But surely whatever method that is going to be used to judge these maps must be able to be translated into either brief feedback or gradings in various areas. I don't want to pry overly into the judging system, but it's difficult to believe the judges don't make at least a couple of notes as they look over a map which is a serious contender.
Say if the map is clearly made by someone who isn't aware of how to map in at least some major aspect? One of your newer mappers? If they aren't a serious competitor for this reason, it should be easy to tell them they'd benefit most from making a map thread. The TL community is always ready to jump in and help, and then the judge isn't spending their time explaining things the average mapper can handle. I'm sure a lot of the maps will be weeded out for simple reasons such as impossible thirds when spawning in ccw positions. No big writeup, but a big lesson which can be quickly conveyed. Then they'll be focusing on the serious competitors, who would most benefit from hearing the thoughts of the judges.
Though I'm not going to tell anyone how to run their own competition, I do feel like this could be something that would have great benefits to the community. Honestly, I got such a lot out of the feedback I got last month that I'd be be willing to help with it in any way possible. If one person gets as much out of it as I did it'd be worth my time.
And I know I'm sounding somewhat annoying here, so please don't take it the wrong way. I'll admit I'm being somewhat greedy and am mostly just eager to pick your brains. If it really is too much effort to do everything, I probably am just underestimating the level of work actually involved. I know you guys have lives too ^^ and I'm already grateful for the time you're putting in to advance the scene.
And not because of any deep strategical reasons, but just because the map doesn't look very nice on the first sight. I don't know how big of a role aesthetics will play in this, but why bother checking aesthetically poorly executed maps when there's 50 well executed ones?
You wouldn't. Aesthetics is a fundamental part of map making. If someone isn't inclined to put in the time to make their map look nice, it obviously doesn't deserve to be carefully looked at. At the same time though, giving them feedback of "Your aesthetics aren't up to par" might actually be valuable to a few people, you never know. I actually spent ages on making my map look good, I'd be crushed if you hated it, lol, but at least I'd know it's an area I need to look at if I'm going to submit to a competition again.
On October 03 2011 09:21 FlopTurnReaver wrote: Ok so I'll try to give you an impression of how approximately 50-70% of the maps are gonna be sorted out:
And not because of any deep strategical reasons, but just because the map doesn't look very nice on the first sight. I don't know how big of a role aesthetics will play in this, but why bother checking aesthetically poorly executed maps when there's 50 well executed ones?
While that's a fair point, overviews can be (and often are) misleading. Some maps look awesome in the overview, and less so up close, but even more common is a overview that looks crap, but the map when viewed in-game, actually looks really nice - and this is really all that matters as this is the only way players will really ever see a map. Whether it's pretty or not in the overview is essentially irrelevant.
On October 03 2011 05:30 Destructicon wrote: I have one last question, can we retract a previously submitted map? Say I posted a map on Monday but I've changed my mind about it and decided I want to make a new one.
Yes, but you should be careful
On October 03 2011 05:56 totalpigeon wrote: Last MotM had some wonderful feedback on the submissions from the judges. Is there any possibility us mappers might get something similar from the judges of this contest? I'm not a particularly experienced mapper and I got so much enjoyment out of learning where I made mistakes on my last map that I spent a whole week fired up and working pretty much fulltime on a map for this competition.
While basically all of the attention is going to be focused on the top 5 (and likely deservedly so), I'm confident it would hugely encourage the extra community who are partaking in this competition to remain active in the mapmaking field in future if all the serious entries which didn't make it could get, maybe not necessarily detailed feedback like before (I'm aware the number of entries is likely to be a lot higher than motm) but hopefully a few key notes on what worked and what didn't (maybe some kind of scoresheet? I don't know how you rate the maps). It would be amazing to see how far off you were from being part of the top 5, it would show all the entrants that TL really want to support new map making talent, that the contest isn't just for the benefit of the mapping teams, and by showing people where to best spend their effort on improving their next map it ensures that the competition can only get better and better.
We can't give feedback on every map. But if you would like some pre-entry feedback feel free to annoy me.
On October 03 2011 14:09 Barrin wrote: Thou shalt work on thy map.
Let's show Blizzard what we've got!
...
I was about to choose "i might win", but then I considered all of the other amazing maps being posted recently and choose "yes and I won't win" + Show Spoiler +
I kind of disagree with the public being alowed to vote. The majority of people don't really know what makes a map good. Though I suppose the staff would be weighted more so that it's not influenced too much by public opinion.
On October 03 2011 21:25 neobowman wrote: I kind of disagree with the public being alowed to vote. The majority of people don't really know what makes a map good. Though I suppose the staff would be weighted more so that it's not influenced too much by public opinion.
I have a question: Will we be able to vote on a map and if so, how and when will we be able to do so?
My apologies if this question was already answered elsewere, I could not find it in this thread.
Edit:
We will then hold a public vote and staff vote to determine the best map. Rankings from the public and staff will be combined to determine the top 5 maps.
Just saw it on my second read in the original post. However I would still like to know how we will be able to vote and where. Thanks a lot in advance.
We will then hold a public vote and staff vote to determine the best map. Rankings from the public and staff will be combined to determine the top 5 maps.
Just saw it on my second read in the original post. However I would still like to know how we will be able to vote and where. Thanks a lot in advance.
Great picture of mapmaking by the way.
How: They will provide a selection of maps that they feel have a chance/deserve a place in the top5. That number will probably vary somewhere between 10 and 20^^ Maybe 12 because of the poll limit?
Where: Most likely in this thread or a new one. Don't worry, you won't miss it
I'm really excited for this contest, but I have no idea what three maps I want to submit. I need to give up on Spellbound for this (seriously, that map is getting nowhere) and come up with some new original ideas. I probably will submit Hysteria because it is my most successful and balanced map, but I'm not sure if its aesthetics are "blizzard approved".
On October 04 2011 08:10 Antares777 wrote: I'm really excited for this contest, but I have no idea what three maps I want to submit. I need to give up on Spellbound for this (seriously, that map is getting nowhere) and come up with some new original ideas. I probably will submit Hysteria because it is my most successful and balanced map, but I'm not sure if its aesthetics are "blizzard approved".
Perhaps you should redo Hysteria's aesthetics then, to fit Blizzard's ideas.
The expansions are indeed interesting, they push out forward towards the back of the enemy's base or alternatively directly towards the enemy's natural. The middle seems kind of open and boring though, it would need to be spiced up.
I'm not really a desert/wasteland enthusiast but I can give it a shot. Come to think of it the only desert/wasteland map we have in the pool atm is Backwater Gulch, and we never see that in tournaments.
On October 04 2011 13:41 Plexa wrote: No gas isn't the point its the expansion design that I like the most
Yeah but because of how SC2 is spaced, some designs just don't port well. In this map, I'd imagine the fourth bases would let tanks either shoot half of the main or the natural expansion on the other side, or both. The way to circumvent this would be to insert large gaps between the areas but tank range is bigger in SC2 and because of how terrain works, it's harder to space naturally. The list goes on.
Hey guys, i have also decided to join the contest and created a map. The Idea was to create a bigger macro map with 4 starting positions... There is still a lot of work to be done with the textures, but i hope you like the layout...
Two more 2 Player Maps will follow. Best regards, Mike
@Admin: If possible, please give me some feedback on this map
Moral of the story - there are lots of awesome creative concepts from BW maps that haven't been explored yet.
WTF NO GAS!
Well, there's reasons some concepts just don't work in SC2 but there definitely is tons more to discover.
rofl, mins only expansions were REALLY common in bw.
i also believe there are TONS of inspirations from great bw maps! i'd actually like to see some islands included.. not pure island maps, but island features...
the only one we ever had was scrap station... (edit: oh lt, but that was removed really early on..)
Moral of the story - there are lots of awesome creative concepts from BW maps that haven't been explored yet.
WTF NO GAS!
Well, there's reasons some concepts just don't work in SC2 but there definitely is tons more to discover.
rofl, mins only expansions were REALLY common in bw.
i also believe there are TONS of inspirations from great bw maps! i'd actually like to see some islands included.. not pure island maps, but island features...
the only one we ever had was scrap station... (edit: oh lt, but that was removed really early on..)
Not at the natural. You got Nostalgia and one more recent 2 player map that I can't remember.
On October 05 2011 00:01 FlopTurnReaver wrote: If you're looking for feedback you should probably open a mapthread.
Btw. easiest to fix mistake: Mainramp has to be diagonal to make standart walls possible.
Thanks man, forgot about the wall in while designing. Will surely fix the ramp, do you have any other ideas on how to improve the map?
Best regards...
Well some other quick feedback I can give is:
There's a lot of straight terrain which looks kinda boring. Also the passages counter clockwise to the highground thirds are a bit too tight. The 3rds themselfes are kinda akward too. Best thing imo would be to make the 3rds a bit which would also widen the areas around it a tad. Also shorten the highground(?) in the middle 1 bit to make the choke wider. As of now there are just a ton of tiny chokes in the middle of the map.
Also if you want to participate in this contest you should make the bases as mentioned in the OP (8:2 normal, 6:2 high yield).
On October 04 2011 13:41 Plexa wrote: No gas isn't the point its the expansion design that I like the most
Yeah but because of how SC2 is spaced, some designs just don't port well. In this map, I'd imagine the fourth bases would let tanks either shoot half of the main or the natural expansion on the other side, or both. The way to circumvent this would be to insert large gaps between the areas but tank range is bigger in SC2 and because of how terrain works, it's harder to space naturally. The list goes on.
Doesn't stop you from being inspired by it though.
On October 04 2011 13:41 Plexa wrote: No gas isn't the point its the expansion design that I like the most
Yeah but because of how SC2 is spaced, some designs just don't port well. In this map, I'd imagine the fourth bases would let tanks either shoot half of the main or the natural expansion on the other side, or both. The way to circumvent this would be to insert large gaps between the areas but tank range is bigger in SC2 and because of how terrain works, it's harder to space naturally. The list goes on.
Doesn't stop you from being inspired by it though.
Agreed. Nearly all my maps have been inspired by BW maps in some way shape or form, whether they're ports or just utilize some concepts.
Normal bases are always 8 normal mineral patches and 2 normal geysers
I use a 1 geyser 7 minerals expo on one of my maps - this is to favor another bases as 3rd while still giving the possibility to take this one (allows you to control the middle of the map from there). This rule above suggest to don't make such expansions but shall i take this as pure suggest or as soft rule (which might decrease the chance for this specific map)?
It is a hard rule, and even if you put in just 7 minerals and 1 gas, and if the judges like the map enough for it to win they will still change that one base to 8 mins and 2 gas. There really is no point to mess with gas and mineral patches number, it just decreases the chance for you to win.
Well let's say this, I can't give you a definite answer to this but if there are 2 "equal" maps there's always the possiblity they'll choose the one that's more Blizzard like. So imo there's no point in disregarding those "suggestions".
And else, as the other guys mentioned, they'll just edit it themselfes if they pick it^^
Some questions: -Destructible rocks seem to get quite some hate throughout this thread - what are some opinions on them as pathing changers/blockers rather than expansion blockers? Extended idea/explanation + Show Spoiler +
My map idea, which to my ears have some balance in it, goes as follows: -2 player map (current idea is mirror type). Absolutely not more than 2 towers. -Hard to defend main, same elevation level as outside of the choke. Choke possible to widen through breaking down rocks. -Easy to defend Natural -Rocks are sealing the straightest routes between bases. Breaking them down opens up more space and quicker paths. -4 bases (3 exps) per side, 2 middle ground expansions. I have made a rough start to my vision of it in the mapmaker, but ohgod it's rough.
-I'm new to map making, but have some ideas which at least to me sounds nice, how do I find people interested in "parenting" a project? -Having looked into Map of the Month threads some, I didn't quite come to a finish if there's some archive/summary of maps accepted and short comments on them, to learn from their mistakes. Checking through the MotM threads were not at all as hard as I first thought, getting at them through the TLwiki page.
I have never done any "fancy" map making, though I spent a bit of time in the wc3 map editor when I didn't play much, and have begun this in the sc2 one as well, and ages ago in the Age of Empires one. It was all rather sporadic, with only rough maps as results, and I'm really interested in learning more about making stuff look good, but meanwhile, I've got an idea which could really use a more experienced map maker's attention. My sc2 experience is limited (and my sc-bw one almost non-existant) - I've never liked losing games, nor had really fun when playing too much, I'm a high gold (eu) player in skill regard.
Seems like i will be the first one who show his maps here. anyways here they are, i will send my pm later when im sure everything is perfect but the choice wont change.
On October 07 2011 03:26 Duvon wrote: Some questions: -Destructible rocks seem to get quite some hate throughout this thread - what are some opinions on them as pathing changers/blockers rather than expansion blockers? Extended idea/explanation + Show Spoiler +
My map idea, which to my ears have some balance in it, goes as follows: -2 player map (current idea is mirror type). Absolutely not more than 2 towers. -Hard to defend main, same elevation level as outside of the choke. Choke possible to widen through breaking down rocks. -Easy to defend Natural -Rocks are sealing the straightest routes between bases. Breaking them down opens up more space and quicker paths. -4 bases (3 exps) per side, 2 middle ground expansions. I have made a rough start to my vision of it in the mapmaker, but ohgod it's rough.
-I'm new to map making, but have some ideas which at least to me sounds nice, how do I find people interested in "parenting" a project? -Having looked into Map of the Month threads some, I didn't quite come to a finish if there's some archive/summary of maps accepted and short comments on them, to learn from their mistakes.
I have never done any "fancy" map making, though I spent a bit of time in the wc3 map editor when I didn't play much, and have begun this in the sc2 one as well, and ages ago in the Age of Empires one. It was all rather sporadic, with only rough maps as results, and I'm really interested in learning more about making stuff look good, but meanwhile, I've got an idea which could really use a more experienced map maker's attention. My sc2 experience is limited (and my sc-bw one almost non-existant) - I've never liked losing games, nor had really fun when playing too much, I'm a high gold (eu) player in skill regard.
On October 07 2011 03:26 Duvon wrote: Some questions: -Destructible rocks seem to get quite some hate throughout this thread - what are some opinions on them as pathing changers/blockers rather than expansion blockers? Extended idea/explanation + Show Spoiler +
My map idea, which to my ears have some balance in it, goes as follows: -2 player map (current idea is mirror type). Absolutely not more than 2 towers. -Hard to defend main, same elevation level as outside of the choke. Choke possible to widen through breaking down rocks. -Easy to defend Natural -Rocks are sealing the straightest routes between bases. Breaking them down opens up more space and quicker paths. -4 bases (3 exps) per side, 2 middle ground expansions. I have made a rough start to my vision of it in the mapmaker, but ohgod it's rough.
-I'm new to map making, but have some ideas which at least to me sounds nice, how do I find people interested in "parenting" a project? -Having looked into Map of the Month threads some, I didn't quite come to a finish if there's some archive/summary of maps accepted and short comments on them, to learn from their mistakes.
I have never done any "fancy" map making, though I spent a bit of time in the wc3 map editor when I didn't play much, and have begun this in the sc2 one as well, and ages ago in the Age of Empires one. It was all rather sporadic, with only rough maps as results, and I'm really interested in learning more about making stuff look good, but meanwhile, I've got an idea which could really use a more experienced map maker's attention. My sc2 experience is limited (and my sc-bw one almost non-existant) - I've never liked losing games, nor had really fun when playing too much, I'm a high gold (eu) player in skill regard.
As this is my semi-first post on this site, I'd like to thank y'all for doing an excellent job.
My advice to you is to sketch your map on paper first, there is a guide about creating 3player rotational symmetric maps (which is evading me at the moment) which includes a guide about incorporating sketches into the editor - from there you can easily see your visions come to life. Without seeing a map its hard to judge the concept.
Thanks for the responses, I'll be creating a map thread, embarrassing as though it will be. One of the reasons I feel so awkward about mapping is actually because I sketch my maps beforehand and ugh in-editor looks awful in comparison. I will try to heart though, and not go off topic any more. Thanks for the tips!
On October 07 2011 22:28 Duvon wrote: Thanks for the responses, I'll be creating a map thread, embarrassing as though it will be. One of the reasons I feel so awkward about mapping is actually because I sketch my maps beforehand and ugh in-editor looks awful in comparison. I will try to heart though, and not go off topic any more. Thanks for the tips!
believe me, all maps look pretty rudimentary when you first make them. we all put in a lot of hours in our maps to refine and make them look good.
Thanks for the responses, I'll be creating a map thread, embarrassing as though it will be. One of the reasons I feel so awkward about mapping is actually because I sketch my maps beforehand and ugh in-editor looks awful in comparison. I will try to heart though, and not go off topic any more. Thanks for the tips!
Here let me show you what it actually looks like when ppl make maps Nothing to be ashamed of.
There is no point in making the map pretty before you have gotten feedback about your layout. Especially when new to the editor.
If you make your textures early, you can symmetrize them when you duplicate half your map. If you texture after you symmetrized the map there are more things to fix.
Too bad in ZvZ all your work gets covered in creep.
On October 09 2011 00:03 chuky500 wrote: If you make your textures early, you can symmetrize them when you duplicate half your map. If you texture after you symmetrized the map there are more things to fix.
Too bad in ZvZ all your work gets covered in creep.
Hey guys, im really eager to join this competition but I cant seem to get the sc2mapanalyzer working even with the solutions provided. when i run the exe it says:
"This application has failed to start because libstdc++-6.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix the problem."
I had to use one of the solutions provided on the analyzer thread, and fill in what was missing from dimfish's version, but I managed. Now I gotta make a couple more maps to finish my 3 submissions. This is an epic event, truly.
d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them the problem i have is that there is no LOS blockers for my texture tileset (port zion.)
On October 12 2011 06:59 WniO wrote: d. Use the correct LOS blockers for the tileset without altering anything about them the problem i have is that there is no LOS blockers for my texture tileset (port zion.)
I think it really is up to your discretion in cases such as this. The space platform/korhal LoS blockers match the scrap/junk theme in Zion, and not all Blizz maps are 100% standard. Abyssal caverns has a spot of Mar Sara dark sand, and Shakuras Plateau has purple water. I think as long as it holds to the main theme and looks like something Blizzard would make I should think it would be fine.
Another question. It is completely OKAY to edit the map's lighting correct? (or change it to another tileset's)? I feel that lighting is obviously a great part of a map's aesthetics to make it feel unique.
On a side note, is there a recommended file hosting site TL prefers for the download link or is anything okay? (e.g at sc2mapster, etc etc)
On October 07 2011 10:59 Mereel wrote: Seems like i will be the first one who show his maps here. anyways here they are, i will send my pm later when im sure everything is perfect but the choice wont change.
On October 07 2011 10:59 Mereel wrote: Seems like i will be the first one who show his maps here. anyways here they are, i will send my pm later when im sure everything is perfect but the choice wont change.
On the first map, I wonder if you could put a pylon in your main and warp into the third base of your opponent if you spawned in close positions... (seems a little bit close)
Um, I wonder if its okay to submit two variations of a certain map? I have a dilemma in my 2nd map and i just cant pick.
Yes definitely; I would expect the variation to be counted as another map entry counting towards my 3 map limit; since i don't have any plans to make a 3rd map.
Technically I could just re-terrain everything and form another map from scratch with similar layouts; but im quite busy currently and just couldnt cut arranging doodads and balancing for another map into my schedule.
So what does the winner get if his map doesn't make it onto the ladder? I mean is there going to be other tournament usages planned for the winner? Also if the guy's map does make the ladder and everything and millions of games are played on it do they get anything at all from blizzard (I remember they were saying they planned to have a map maker payout thing)
On October 19 2011 00:48 Barrin wrote: For the record you'd be surprised how much creativity is still open to you while still basically following this.
On October 19 2011 22:41 Zolstice wrote: Alright... 3/3 maps are sent to TL Map Contest, hope you and the judges get it Plexa. Those babies are made with sincere love =D
@Barrin: I couldn't agree more. Even if the maps do get to the top three, the gimmicks will probably be 'fixed' by Blizzard.
They'll only be 'fixed' if they address balance/excitement/existing map design flaws. =(
I've never made a map before, but I've got some cool stuff in the pipeline. Not just a map but map creation tools. Probably won't be done until right before the deadline.
On October 19 2011 22:41 Zolstice wrote: Alright... 3/3 maps are sent to TL Map Contest, hope you and the judges get it Plexa. Those babies are made with sincere love =D
@Barrin: I couldn't agree more. Even if the maps do get to the top three, the gimmicks will probably be 'fixed' by Blizzard.
They'll only be 'fixed' if they address balance/excitement/existing map design flaws. =(
On October 19 2011 22:41 Zolstice wrote: Alright... 3/3 maps are sent to TL Map Contest, hope you and the judges get it Plexa. Those babies are made with sincere love =D
@Barrin: I couldn't agree more. Even if the maps do get to the top three, the gimmicks will probably be 'fixed' by Blizzard.
They'll only be 'fixed' if they address balance/excitement/existing map design flaws. =(
Don't forget how they 'fix' maps with rocks =D
Well, my map will actually attempt to use rocks and xel nagas for something besides what blizzard has done. I wish I could adjust their size, but oh well, creativity requires constraints.
On October 27 2011 23:53 LunaSaint wrote: Question - I think it was said at one point that you couldn't update entered maps - does this include appending analyser images?
I want this Yinfei map replace Nerazim crypt in the ladder pool. However he problably wont get this credit if it gets added gotta renamed to something blizzard like stuff.
That's a good question, well, what you mean is "Are you allowed to submit a map that was originally made by someone else?"
Sanshorn Mist is a really good map, someone needs to submit it IMO ^^. I assume Konicki isn't around anymore to submit it.
Most importantly I think there has been many significant revisions since Konicki worked on it. So I think the map might belong to the team about as much as it does to Konicki at this point anyway.
In this particular case, I would say yes, he should be allowed to submit that map. (It's not up to me btw).
Yea Konicki is totally gone, no one has heard from him in quite awhile. Plus we made all the AE revisions....
That's a good question, well, what you mean is "Are you allowed to submit a map that was originally made by someone else?"
Sanshorn Mist is a really good map, someone needs to submit it IMO ^^. I assume Konicki isn't around anymore to submit it.
Most importantly I think there has been many significant revisions since Konicki worked on it. So I think the map might belong to the team about as much as it does to Konicki at this point anyway.
In this particular case, I would say yes, he should be allowed to submit that map. (It's not up to me btw).
Yea Konicki is totally gone, no one has heard from him in quite awhile. Plus we made all the AE revisions....
And basing a map off of another map is completely legitimate, almost all Blizzard maps and tournament maps do it anyway.
I will be submitting these at some point tomorrow.
(I use the shortest of close spawn rush distance timing below. If this should be different please let me know what to use. Also, what kind of analyzer images are "required" -- I know it says it's optional, but is the important one the summary, the cross spawn nat rush, or should they all be listed?)
Edit1: (Is there anything particular that needs to be done when resubmitting, or does a subsequent entry simply replace the old one? I'm sending these now without the analyzer pics to make sure they are in since I'm not sure about the answer to the above question.)
Ahhh, I remember this map. Bit difficult to macro, so blizzard would love this. Seriously though, The design seems rough around the edges, and the bases outside of the nat are difficult to take and defend.
@ Mashmed -- Did you want us to vote on which three you would to submit? Or was there some special caveat (that I missed) that allows you to submit 2v2 maps separately?
I honestly doubt that Blizzard will add the best maps of this competition into the map pool of futur ladder seasons. I sincerely think they don't really care about this...
Was also tempted to redo and submit Master System (linked) but the whole caveat with doing anything not seen in Blizz maps made me think twice about it. Hopefully this whole thing will be a resounding success and we'll be allowed to be way more adventurous in future. As it was my first map (+ I'm fairly sure it was the first map with two different sets of spawn points when I first made it back in March), it would be a shame not to be able to polish it as far as I can and enter it into something like this.
Incidentally, are we supposed to getting any kind of confirmation of receipt of the maps? I haven't heard anything back regarding mine, just wondering if it went through properly.
First: Mineral-only gold replaced with a 6-blue/1-rich vespene in the spirit of the new GSL base changes. Second: All expos besides the shared 6 gold/2 gas changed to 8/2's in the spirit of the 'ladder map' suggestions for the contest.
On October 31 2011 08:52 Plexa wrote: Check your PM sent box
I didn't get anything...
You won't 'get' anything. But in your PM window, check your "sent" box (it's right below Saved on the list on the left.) If the message you sent is there, your message sent and you can be pretty much assured it was received.
Some pretty good submissions here. Such a shame that out of hundreds of good, playable maps, only a select few will ever have more than a dozen games played on them.
On October 31 2011 13:03 0neder wrote: What timezone is the october 31st 11:59PM deadline for? I'm in pacific. I can't see the time zone---maybe it's blacked out?
On October 31 2011 13:03 0neder wrote: What timezone is the october 31st 11:59PM deadline for? I'm in pacific. I can't see the time zone---maybe it's blacked out?
On October 31 2011 14:16 iGrok wrote: bleh, I much prefer the old sanctuarium
I agree. I saw the Belshir'd version and facepalmed lol
LOL yes let's diss each others maps ¬_¬
If you must know, the reason I changed it is because I wanted to maintain the destroyed temple walls but doing so with anything but Bel'Shir MM cliffs means using a custom model which I couldn't be bothered with, I'd rather keep things simple. The overview doesn't do the map justice though, it just looks like every other Bel'Shir map when really it's arguably one of the best.
Regardless, I wouldn't even have used this map if it weren't for Blizz's shitty fixed-mineral base rule.
These do not have many changes to accommodate for Blizzard's wishes, their tilesets are mixed and still enchantingly beautiful The only things I changed was all blue mineral lines to 8 + 2 and removed the changes to the watchtower in Concrete Dreams (made for a better map, I think)
First time mapper here submitting right now. I don't see an upload image available in the PM interface. Also, do I just upload the .sc2map file, or do I need to throw a whole folder on there?
Thanks.
Edit, well, sent URLs for the image and the .sc2map file. Please let me know if that's incomplete.
I'm the guy who posted the 'state of SC2 aesthetics' a few days ago. Here's a crappy screen of my map, Dustbowl: + Show Spoiler +
Guess which BW map inspired it. Terrain aesthetics weren't finished, but the feeling is what I was going for. I'll be posting screens and an OP tomorrow. I'm tired and have to work in a few hours. =)
it is the third version of this map with two distinctivly different expansion layouts as known from motm8 which was also used in some ipl qualifier and MarineKing says it's beautifull
Gah...I forgot the deadline was today. I'm at home waiting for a repairman and all my maps are on my work computer. Guess I'm setting this one out. ;_;
Funcmode I wasn't really bashing the map I just kinda found it humorous that that is what you picked to Blizzard-ize the map lol. I'll agree that while it looks great for a Bel'Shir map the original definitely looked better but if you had to change it for reasons like that then fair enough.
On October 31 2011 12:49 sevia wrote: Some pretty good submissions here. Such a shame that out of hundreds of good, playable maps, only a select few will ever have more than a dozen games played on them.
Whoa many great maps here, hope to see most of them make it to ladder or tournaments. I don't know very much about maps in great detail, but at the very least, I think they look pretty awesome and intriguing to play on.
Watching this map project unfold is very exciting. I hope this will improve our ladder map pool as well bringing new maps into the public eye for tournaments.
On October 31 2011 08:52 Plexa wrote: Check your PM sent box
I didn't get anything...
You won't 'get' anything. But in your PM window, check your "sent" box (it's right below Saved on the list on the left.) If the message you sent is there, your message sent and you can be pretty much assured it was received.
On October 31 2011 08:52 Plexa wrote: Check your PM sent box
I didn't get anything...
You won't 'get' anything. But in your PM window, check your "sent" box (it's right below Saved on the list on the left.) If the message you sent is there, your message sent and you can be pretty much assured it was received.
I got no pm.
Nobody received a PM back. What he is saying is that the "Sent" box will show all of the messages that you sent. If it shows you've sent it there (which it will) it was delivered successfully.
On November 01 2011 13:06 Plexa wrote: Thank you for your submissions! We had 151 unique maps submitted. Please be patient while the judges come to a decision !
Thank you once again
151 is a good number
I think there's bound to be at least 5 ladder-worthy maps among them all, almost certainly more. Can't wait to see what makes the short list!
The quality is insanely high for this btw. Out of 151 maps I would say 120 or so are of very high quality and the other 30 are still very playable maps.
Hey, can we get some stats? like the number of maps of a certain number of spawns or symmetry types? It would be interesting to see how many 2 spawn vs 4 spawn maps there are for example, or how many maps use 4spawn rotational format etc.
On November 02 2011 12:42 Plexa wrote: The quality is insanely high for this btw. Out of 151 maps I would say 120 or so are of very high quality and the other 30 are still very playable maps.
The real question is, who sent that ONE map... (crosses fingers that it isnt me)
I have just sent out a PM to some people regarding their submissions. They have until 14:00 KST Friday to make minor modifications to their entries (such as adding geyers/minerals, small alterations to natural formations, +- rocks etc). If you have not received a PM it does not mean your map has been eliminated, it could mean that there was nothing needing to be fixed. All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
May I ask, how did you guys check for the errors. Via analyzer images or did u guys actually open up the map?
My mediafire map files still has 0 downloads so I am assuming its thru the analyzer images no? Unless you guys are not finished checking every single one, or that my PM somehow didnt send..... well its in the sent box nevertheless.
On November 02 2011 17:47 Zolstice wrote: May I ask, how did you guys check for the errors. Via analyzer images or did u guys actually open up the map?
My mediafire map files still has 0 downloads so I am assuming its thru the analyzer images no? Unless you guys are not finished checking every single one, or that my PM somehow didnt send..... well its in the sent box nevertheless.
We've been using images so far to go through everything. We'll be using map files soon.
On November 02 2011 15:36 Plexa wrote: I have just sent out a PM to some people regarding their submissions. They have until 14:00 KST Friday to make minor modifications to their entries (such as adding geyers/minerals, small alterations to natural formations, +- rocks etc). If you have not received a PM it does not mean your map has been eliminated, it could mean that there was nothing needing to be fixed. All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
Just curious, were the people who recieved PM's those within the 30 to give them a fighting chance, or was it more for the people who look like they really have a good concept (top 10-15 material) but have something holding them back?
On November 02 2011 15:36 Plexa wrote: I have just sent out a PM to some people regarding their submissions. They have until 14:00 KST Friday to make minor modifications to their entries (such as adding geyers/minerals, small alterations to natural formations, +- rocks etc). If you have not received a PM it does not mean your map has been eliminated, it could mean that there was nothing needing to be fixed. All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
Just curious, were the people who recieved PM's those within the 30 to give them a fighting chance, or was it more for the people who look like they really have a good concept (top 10-15 material) but have something holding them back?
The maps, not the people. We just got notes on suggestions to improve some of the maps. We don't know if the other maps made it or no, so if you didnt get a mail, it may still mean your map is among the top, just that it doesn't have an issue.
On November 02 2011 15:36 Plexa wrote: I have just sent out a PM to some people regarding their submissions. They have until 14:00 KST Friday to make minor modifications to their entries (such as adding geyers/minerals, small alterations to natural formations, +- rocks etc). If you have not received a PM it does not mean your map has been eliminated, it could mean that there was nothing needing to be fixed. All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
On November 02 2011 15:36 Plexa wrote: I have just sent out a PM to some people regarding their submissions. They have until 14:00 KST Friday to make minor modifications to their entries (such as adding geyers/minerals, small alterations to natural formations, +- rocks etc). If you have not received a PM it does not mean your map has been eliminated, it could mean that there was nothing needing to be fixed. All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
•Mappers with maps which have been selected will have approximately a week (possibly less) to make final adjustments to their maps to fix any issues ,
so if we trust the rules you could know already who has the shot in their plans , or to say it more clear is closest to the judges goals . just a little part of work for you.
judges have a mindset of how they define a perfect map that gets a shot.
Btw to the 1 unplayable map it is most problably mine , their minds arent ready yet to view the awesomeness of it !
I think you should have used more tact. It feels like a mix of favoritism and wasting mappers time. I don't see why it's so urgent that maps get the right number of minerals before they get judged. You could just ask the finalists to fix their maps before the tournament. I wonder if you also asked to fix maps that took 5 minutes to make, or just the ones that had a chance.
Lefix said he's fixed his map but I looked at his pictures and I don't see any problem with the amount of ressources. The way you say people are allowed to make adjustments because "this contest is about finding perfection" sounds like you'd already found it (even though I understand his maps deserve to be finalist).
On November 03 2011 08:23 chuky500 wrote: I think you should have used more tact. It feels like a mix of favoritism and wasting mappers time. I don't see why it's so urgent that maps get the right number of minerals before they get judged. You could just ask the finalists to fix their maps before the tournament. I wonder if you also asked to fix maps that took 5 minutes to make, or just the ones that had a chance.
Lefix said he's fixed his map but I looked at his pictures and I don't see any problem with the amount of ressources. The way you say people are allowed to make adjustments because "this contest is about finding perfection" sounds like you'd already found it (even though I understand his maps deserve to be finalist).
This is not the case. The maps haven't been submitted to the official judges yet. Due to the amount of entries I can't expect the judges to go through each map in significant detail without cutting some maps first. Me and two high level players went through the maps to decide on which ones should be passed on. We noticed a lot of entries had some issues that could be easily fixed that would stop them being outright dismissed when coming to the final judging. With that said, no one knows whether they're in the final selection or not - and if someone were to resubmit a map that we had previously cut, we would re-evaluate whether to send it on or not.
On November 02 2011 22:19 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
On November 02 2011 15:36 Plexa wrote: I have just sent out a PM to some people regarding their submissions. They have until 14:00 KST Friday to make minor modifications to their entries (such as adding geyers/minerals, small alterations to natural formations, +- rocks etc). If you have not received a PM it does not mean your map has been eliminated, it could mean that there was nothing needing to be fixed. All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
Just curious, were the people who recieved PM's those within the 30 to give them a fighting chance, or was it more for the people who look like they really have a good concept (top 10-15 material) but have something holding them back?
The maps, not the people. We just got notes on suggestions to improve some of the maps. We don't know if the other maps made it or no, so if you didnt get a mail, it may still mean your map is among the top, just that it doesn't have an issue.
I'm sorry, I mangled that last post... I was trying to get out the door to work, and... anyway, what that *should* have read was:
Were the people who received PMs those people who submitted maps that were part of the 30 "still playable" maps to give those maps a fighting chance (i.e. leveling the playing field for all the maps), or were the people who received PMs those people who submitted one of the 120 high quality maps but had a particularly good design but just had a few things holding them back from being an automatic top 10-15 pick (i.e. perfecting the best of the best maps)?
In other words, I was trying to figure out whether not getting a PM was a good thing or a bad thing, since getting a PM seems like a good thing in either case. In the little time I can hop on TL at work, I noticed the flurry of map thread updates which I could only assume was a result of the PMs. Given that and the other "clues" (like Plexa's comment above) it seems like the latter, that the PMs were for the *good* maps, is more the case. While that doesn't *necessarily* mean anyone who didn't get a PM is out, it certainly seems like a bad thing not to have gotten one. Not saying that I didn't of course....... 0_o o_0 0_o o_0
I think that the top 15-30 or so got PMs, along with those that have odd minerals/bugs/etc. Since I didn't get one, I would assume that either my maps got disqualified due to no map file (oops ! ) or I'm either in the elite few (no way) or I'm not even close.
I don't think it's particularly good or bad. It seems to me just a stage where we can deal with simple fixes to otherwise decent looking maps.
It does confirm that at least the maps mentioned in the PM survived the at-a-glance rounds, but I get the impression most maps have done that anyway, judging by Plexa's posts in the last couple pages.
On November 02 2011 15:36 Plexa wrote: All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
I'll quote this from plexa just in case some ppl still think its favoritism. He's giving all of us time to make minor changes and fixes till the said time.
For everyone who's not sure when that's gonna be in their timezone:
Friday, Nov 04 5:00am GMT (GMT+00:00)
Also about the PM's, I don't think it's good or bad either. They're just trying to help us to submit the best possible maps, respectivly tell us what might help to convince the judges, which is an awesome thing imo.
On November 02 2011 15:36 Plexa wrote: All entrants are allowed to make minor adjustments to their entries until 14:00KST Friday for fairness. After all, this contest is about finding perfection!
I'll quote this from plexa just in case some ppl still think its favoritism. He's giving all of us time to make minor changes and fixes till the said time.
I get that and I was not implying that there was favoritism so much as trying to get a read on the events that are occurring. I need to know how nervous I should be. :p [Edit] But if one didn't get a PM indicating what kind of perfecting changes to make, one might find it difficult to do what is necessary to make the cut one otherwise might not have made, no? [/Edit]
Also, I would be very interested to see the full list of 151 entries at some point -- I would have liked to have been able to playtest others' maps and given feedback during this competition but with my limited time was barely able to squeek out playtesting on my own maps.
On November 03 2011 10:19 TehTemplar wrote: Did you hypotonic?
I think that the top 15-30 or so got PMs, along with those that have odd minerals/bugs/etc. Since I didn't get one, I would assume that either my maps got disqualified due to no map file (oops ! ) or I'm either in the elite few (no way) or I'm not even close.
Just maps with small fixes have been PMd. As I said, mostly a "rocks at gold" or "move geyser to other side of natural" changes. I wouldn't be able to tell you whether your maps have made it through as we (purposely) named the images by map and not author. It took me 10-15 minutes trawling through my inbox to get the names of the map authors who had maps which required minor tweaks!
On November 03 2011 14:58 Plexa wrote: Just maps with small fixes have been PMd. As I said, mostly a "rocks at gold" or "move geyser to other side of natural" changes. I wouldn't be able to tell you whether your maps have made it through as we (purposely) named the images by map and not author. It took me 10-15 minutes trawling through my inbox to get the names of the map authors who had maps which required minor tweaks!
um, 2/3 of my maps don't have rocks at gold but their positions are fairly open; or otherwise a rock blocking a straight path towards the gold.
I didnt get any PM, so i take it everything's okay?
On November 03 2011 14:58 Plexa wrote: Just maps with small fixes have been PMd. As I said, mostly a "rocks at gold" or "move geyser to other side of natural" changes. I wouldn't be able to tell you whether your maps have made it through as we (purposely) named the images by map and not author. It took me 10-15 minutes trawling through my inbox to get the names of the map authors who had maps which required minor tweaks!
um, 2/3 of my maps don't have rocks at gold but their positions are fairly open; or otherwise a rock blocking a straight path towards the gold.
I didnt get any PM, so i take it everything's okay?
Golds only need rocks when they are easy to take! It sounds like golds weren't an issue with your maps
Well, I didn't get any PMs so I suspect no bugs, or problems related to gold bases where found. Though I wish I knew if my maps had made it trough and if/if not what I should change to make them more awesome.
Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
Adding to that: I don't think the majority of people would be able to hold true to the "Gameplay over looks" rule of thumb, and I am afraid that a map's eye candies or visual appeal will eventually become a big matter to win.
@Hassybaby: No finalists yet, 100++ entries are still being judged; and all of us have time till friday to make minor changes.
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
Adding to that: I don't think the majority of people would be able to hold true to the "Gameplay over looks" rule of thumb, and I am afraid that a map's eye candies or visual appeal will eventually become a big matter to win.
@Hassybaby: No finalists yet, 100++ entries are still being judged; and all of us have time till friday to make minor changes.
this is so awesome and i realy hope to see the winner map in season 5 ladderpool! i am impressed just by the maps which are shown by their creators here in the thread and could not decide which i like most. without any problems i could change my ladder-map-pool clompletly with the maps posted here. i just want to say great job to all mappmaker's!
my top 5 so far are:
TPW Neonights Cascade ESV Korhal Compound LoS Twilight Peaks Darkness Falls
Hmm, so either my 1st map ever is solid, or too unfinished. I'm anxious to see which. =) I need to make a thread for it to accurately capture it's beauty and layout.
This is my first map, and for some reason the overview image came out grainy and washed out. Any advice on overview images? I'd like to maybe re-send a better one so it better reflects how awesome my map looks in context.
This is my first map, and for some reason the overview image came out grainy and washed out. Any advice on overview images? I'd like to maybe re-send a better one so it better reflects how awesome my map looks in context.
Thanks.
The best way is to go to Data ----> Export Map Image, and then you have to convert the .tga that it spits out into .jpg to upload to imgur.
On November 04 2011 01:28 0neder wrote: Thanks monitor. That's what I did, I must have been missing a setting or done it in too low a resolution. I'll try again after work.
Oh really? Hmm.... yeah you might just have to mess around with the pixels (2500x2500, 2800x2800, etc.), but I haven't had a problem with it.
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
Agree, it's also easy to abuse such a system.
Disagree with this. If a map wins and the people do not like it, the Map most likely wont get/stay in Ladderpool.
Is there something like a overview how many maps hav been submitted ? Would really like to know that.
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
Agree, it's also easy to abuse such a system.
Disagree with this. If a map wins and the people do not like it, the Map most likely wont get/stay in Ladderpool.
Is there something like a overview how many maps hav been submitted ? Would really like to know that.
Because what the community wants has always been the most important thing for a map in the Blizzard Ladder pool right?
On November 04 2011 01:55 funcmode wrote: Also, if you have custom lighting or have altered the lighting settings at all, have the lighting window open while you export the image.
Thanks for the tip. That is bizarre why that would need to be open while exporting though. Good find.
Another option is to actually set the lighting of your map as your custom one, isn't that hard in the data editor. You have to do it anyway to get the lighting on the map for bnet play
On November 04 2011 03:27 Mashmed wrote: Another option is to actually set the lighting of your map as your custom one, isn't that hard in the data editor. You have to do it anyway to get the lighting on the map for bnet play
Hmm, I'll look into this. Do I have to save and name a configuration and then call it out in the data editor? Thanks Mashmed.
On November 04 2011 01:06 JuDoSchu wrote: this is so awesome and i realy hope to see the winner map in season 5 ladderpool! i am impressed just by the maps which are shown by their creators here in the thread and could not decide which i like most. without any problems i could change my ladder-map-pool clompletly with the maps posted here. i just want to say great job to all mappmaker's!
my top 5 so far are:
TPW Neonights Cascade ESV Korhal Compound LoS Twilight Peaks Darkness Falls
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
Don't be so concerned! - Public vote is important so that the public feel like the ladder pool reflects what they want - The finalists will of exceptional quality, and any one of them should be balanced and interesting i.e. there is no wrong option - With 30,000 potential voters, and R1CH on the prowl, I don't think it can be swayed too much by ip resets, friends etc
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
Don't be so concerned! - Public vote is important so that the public feel like the ladder pool reflects what they want - The finalists will of exceptional quality, and any one of them should be balanced and interesting i.e. there is no wrong option - With 30,000 potential voters, and R1CH on the prowl, I don't think it can be swayed too much by ip resets, friends etc
LOL R1CH on the prowl. I generally am also concerned that the public's opinion might play too much of a role in deciding the winner, but I'm sure it will be fine however it comes out.
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
This is true, but some of the best BW maps had balance issues, yet produced some of the most exciting games we know and love. Let's not get so focused on balance that we stagnate the metagame and our understanding of it. Continually exploring new map ideas will help expose inherent game balance that should be fixed, independent of map balance.
I welcome the community's input. I do hope they are open to new ideas and a variety of tilesets beyond blue/green though.
If all the voting choices are good maps, which I'm sure they will be, I think it'll be the biggest boost to custom maps to have a community favourite on the ladde. Though there is also a place for cigars-and-brandy-in-the-parlor discussions about what map is really the artifact of highest perfection amongst connoisseurs. In a more hardcore community (a la end of BW) these things would converge. If they do so this time around it will be fortuitous.
The Python or Destination of SC2 might be passed up by a public vote but what we get won't be severely inferior.
On November 03 2011 21:42 neobowman wrote: Just noting again, I think it's a terrible idea to let the community vote. To be honest, most people know jack sh*t about mapping or balance. Maybe get a top group of guys in Team Liquid or something. Just not the general public.
This is true, but some of the best BW maps had balance issues, yet produced some of the most exciting games we know and love. Let's not get so focused on balance that we stagnate the metagame and our understanding of it. Continually exploring new map ideas will help expose inherent game balance that should be fixed, independent of map balance.
I welcome the community's input. I do hope they are open to new ideas and a variety of tilesets beyond blue/green though.
Not just balance but a lot of the maps have fundamental flaws related to how they are built.
Though Plexa's points are good and he's right about all that.
(2) Through the Never by Mereel (2) Iron Curtain by Mereel (2) Cloud Kingdom by Superouman (2) Overgrown by Meltage (2) Neonights by Funcmode (2) Yuma by Meltage (2) Edge of Oblivion by Prodig (3) Twilight Depths by Grebliv (4) Ithaca by Prodig (4) Twilight Peaks by Ragoo (4) Sanctuarium by Funcmode
(2) Through the Never by Mereel (2) Iron Curtain by Mereel (2) Cloud Kingdom by Superouman (2) Overgrown by Meltage (2) Neonights by Funcmode (2) Yuma by Meltage (2) Edge of Oblivion by Prodig (3) Twilight Depths by Grebliv (4) Ithaca by Prodig (4) Twilight Peaks by Ragoo (4) Sanctuarium by Funcmode
GL to all!
I disagree with Through the Never, Overgrown, and Twilight Depths. In their place I would have Yuma, Spirit, and Montane. And if I picked one of my maps, it would be Korhal Brawl.
I disagree with Through the Never, Overgrown, and Twilight Depths. In their place I would have Yuma, Spirit, and Montane. And if I picked one of my maps, it would be Korhal Brawl.
Great maps as well. I also picked Yuma though.
Not sure why you'd disagree Overgrown. One of the top maps IMO.
Apom is basically correct. I sent the images on October 30, but put off submitting the map files until I felt like it. And Mereel seems to dislike me for whatever reason.
Submitted version without custom texturesThis map played well in Map of the Month - was picked by one of the pros as his favorite map . Hope to post replay soon.
Submitted version without custom texturesThis map played well in Map of the Month - was picked by one of the pros as his favorite map . Hope to post replay soon.
Submitted earlier version with undefendable 3rd, sorry
Nice submissions Johanaz. Just from looking, I actually think you should just remove the gold base on Mud rock. It really isn't very plausible to take in any situation and helps terran more than any other races. You could make it blue, but it is still in a horrible position. I think the 5 bases have a nice layout and the gold could just be remove (and the area around it adjusted to compensate).
Submitted version without custom texturesThis map played well in Map of the Month - was picked by one of the pros as his favorite map . Hope to post replay soon.
Submitted earlier version with undefendable 3rd, sorry
Nice submissions Johanaz. Just from looking, I actually think you should just remove the gold base on Mud rock. It really isn't very plausible to take in any situation and helps terran more than any other races. You could make it blue, but it is still in a horrible position. I think the 5 bases have a nice layout and the gold could just be remove (and the area around it adjusted to compensate).
Thanks. I didn´t get a pm about Mud Rock (or any map for that matter), so I assume that map is dead. Tried to revive it for this contest, but I don´t know if I succeeded. I may remove the gold (and fix additional issues) if I ever decide to remake it again.
Really impressed by this topic. Its great to see the community & Blizzard working hand in hand. GL to everyone that has submitted a map. I imagine that out of this there may be more map contests in the future. Hope to be playing on some of these maps soon! regards ferdi
Submitted version without custom texturesThis map played well in Map of the Month - was picked by one of the pros as his favorite map . Hope to post replay soon.
Submitted earlier version with undefendable 3rd, sorry
Nice submissions Johanaz. Just from looking, I actually think you should just remove the gold base on Mud rock. It really isn't very plausible to take in any situation and helps terran more than any other races. You could make it blue, but it is still in a horrible position. I think the 5 bases have a nice layout and the gold could just be remove (and the area around it adjusted to compensate).
Thanks. I didn´t get a pm about Mud Rock (or any map for that matter), so I assume that map is dead. Tried to revive it for this contest, but I don´t know if I succeeded. I may remove the gold (and fix additional issues) if I ever decide to remake it again.
Just to clarify; I think any maps can still be in the running even if the author didn't receive a PM, because maybe the map good enough that it didn't need any changes.
Submitted version without custom texturesThis map played well in Map of the Month - was picked by one of the pros as his favorite map . Hope to post replay soon.
Submitted earlier version with undefendable 3rd, sorry
Nice submissions Johanaz. Just from looking, I actually think you should just remove the gold base on Mud rock. It really isn't very plausible to take in any situation and helps terran more than any other races. You could make it blue, but it is still in a horrible position. I think the 5 bases have a nice layout and the gold could just be remove (and the area around it adjusted to compensate).
Thanks. I didn´t get a pm about Mud Rock (or any map for that matter), so I assume that map is dead. Tried to revive it for this contest, but I don´t know if I succeeded. I may remove the gold (and fix additional issues) if I ever decide to remake it again.
Just to clarify; I think any maps can still be in the running even if the author didn't receive a PM, because maybe the map good enough that it didn't need any changes.
I wonder how many maps passed the first check after the resubmissions? How many maps are the judges down to? No doubt the overall quality of the maps was greater than anticipated. We also got the week promised us to make changes to the maps.
On November 09 2011 03:53 Mereel wrote: im bored, pls give some infos :D
The man has a point.
You have the chance of making this a huge deal (it is already a big deal) in the community by posting some info about the results or the outstanding maps, it will make it more interesnting, maybe some data about how the expansions lay outs are being favored over others and so many things, please do!
On November 09 2011 08:02 FlopTurnReaver wrote: Speaking for personal experience, it always takes longer than announced
That's what she said.
Seriously though, I don't think it's worth the judges' time to compile statistics on expansion layouts and the like. Focusing on the actual selection process is probably more reasonable, given that they are people with a limited time availability.
On November 10 2011 14:15 SpoR wrote: I hope you guys release a pack of all the submissions as well as the top 7 or whatever. I wanna see em all.
Indeed that is valuable information. I think Plexa said they wont do that though; people will post their submissions if they want them to be seen.
Is it thread worthy to glean from this thread (and the results thread?) all of the posted submissions to compile the "as far as we know" list of submission? Or should something like that just be lumped into a reply into one of the two threads?
On November 10 2011 14:15 SpoR wrote: I hope you guys release a pack of all the submissions as well as the top 7 or whatever. I wanna see em all.
Indeed that is valuable information. I think Plexa said they wont do that though; people will post their submissions if they want them to be seen.
I don't want to upload submissions for two reasons - intensifies any "XXX map" should have won comments - I don't want to upload maps without permission, some authors may want to keep their entries secret for whatever reason
If I planned to showcase the maps I would have needed a "TL will post all submissions" statement somewhere in this post.
Plexa I have a question. If he winning map will be chosen by mere votes after the tournament, isn't it kind of obvious that haven's lagoon already won? I don't think people watching the open tournament is going to change their mind when they've already been indicated that the play testers liked it best.
On November 10 2011 15:15 IronManSC wrote: Plexa I have a question. If he winning map will be chosen by mere votes after the tournament, isn't it kind of obvious that haven's lagoon already won? I don't think people watching the open tournament is going to change their mind when they've already been indicated that the play testers liked it best.
I disagree. I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals. They'll be put into a post and people can vote after that. Plus there is the staff vote as well which might change things. And I definitely wouldn't say play testers liked it best, I merely emphasized the point on that map because I knew some people would be a bit upset by it being chosen.
On November 10 2011 15:23 Plexa wrote: I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals.
I find it silly that you value someones opinion on how good a map is, because they are good at playing starcraft2.
On November 10 2011 15:23 Plexa wrote: I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals.
I find it silly that you value someones opinion on how good a map is, because they are good at playing starcraft2.
let's ask someone who is goof in counterstrike!
seriously, who's opinion would you value when it comes to maps? casters? random chosen average joe? popular vote? mapmakers?
On November 10 2011 15:23 Plexa wrote: I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals.
I find it silly that you value someones opinion on how good a map is, because they are good at playing starcraft2.
let's ask someone who is goof in counterstrike!
seriously, who's opinion would you value when it comes to maps? casters? random chosen average joe? popular vote? mapmakers?
On November 10 2011 15:23 Plexa wrote: I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals.
I find it silly that you value someones opinion on how good a map is, because they are good at playing starcraft2.
let's ask someone who is goof in counterstrike!
seriously, who's opinion would you value when it comes to maps? casters? random chosen average joe? popular vote? mapmakers?
map makers
Essentially, every map maker of note entered the contest. How can they judge a contest which has their own entry in it.
On November 10 2011 15:23 Plexa wrote: I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals.
I find it silly that you value someones opinion on how good a map is, because they are good at playing starcraft2.
let's ask someone who is goof in counterstrike!
seriously, who's opinion would you value when it comes to maps? casters? random chosen average joe? popular vote? mapmakers?
map makers
Essentially, every map maker of note entered the contest. How can they judge a contest which has their own entry in it.
Judgin own map unbiased is almost impossible I agree, but I dont find any reason why a map maker could not judge every other map in the competion, even if he has hes own maps in the same pool.
On November 10 2011 15:23 Plexa wrote: I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals.
I find it silly that you value someones opinion on how good a map is, because they are good at playing starcraft2.
let's ask someone who is goof in counterstrike!
seriously, who's opinion would you value when it comes to maps? casters? random chosen average joe? popular vote? mapmakers?
map makers
Essentially, every map maker of note entered the contest. How can they judge a contest which has their own entry in it.
Judgin own map unbiased is almost impossible I agree, but I dont find any reason why a map maker could not judge every other map in the competion, even if he has hes own maps in the same pool.
i have the impression map makers tend to emphasize technical aspects, balance and aesthetics and as we are a small elitest group - yes we are cause there are so few map makers in comparison to players - we have made a meta-mapmaking so to speak, what to do and what not to do. lots of good ideas do not get through in this forums possibly, because the map is flawed in many other spots.
so having mapmakers discussing maps is like designers talk about transportations design/cars. it might be more intelligent to let the marketing experts have a voice and the consumers.
On November 10 2011 15:23 Plexa wrote: I plan to get some comments from any notable participants including the four players who make it to the semifinals.
I find it silly that you value someones opinion on how good a map is, because they are good at playing starcraft2.
let's ask someone who is goof in counterstrike!
seriously, who's opinion would you value when it comes to maps? casters? random chosen average joe? popular vote? mapmakers?
map makers
Essentially, every map maker of note entered the contest. How can they judge a contest which has their own entry in it.
Judgin own map unbiased is almost impossible I agree, but I dont find any reason why a map maker could not judge every other map in the competion, even if he has hes own maps in the same pool.
i have the impression map makers tend to emphasize technical aspects, balance and aesthetics and as we are a small elitest group - yes we are cause there are so few map makers in comparison to players - we have made a meta-mapmaking so to speak, what to do and what not to do. lots of good ideas do not get through in this forums possibly, because the map is flawed in many other spots.
so having mapmakers discussing maps is like designers talk about transportations design/cars. it might be more intelligent to let the marketing experts have a voice and the consumers.
There is a reason why when 99% of the products of the world were desinged, the desingers did not ask consumers directly what they want, but instead decided themselfs what is the best for them. I see pro gamers only experts of maps they have played +150 games on personally.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DLxl4.jpg)
), as their own when it isn't theirs ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EqkLs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/31_Arizona.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://image-upload.de/image/zxFs65/64f386962a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sPy1Wl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l2kinl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4NrFsl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1R7ZB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L9Yht.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xnl5O.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Vnyfx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NNXjK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y2MyM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QNDu1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MmJ6T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1ry3g.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YrDJf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XfSkk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aQNHU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ldHDg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GSaVj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v73Rg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j54mx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VGyFS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Qae2S.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/juKjj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/42uVP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VoeOa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NOtYX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QdCcN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mZptX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EWgR0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t0qN3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KN3i7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/90M2W.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IpcAw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QXLNC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XArFG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8QflE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kZNXM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q15ci.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9e0h6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ag0wH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rwcryl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uGbj6.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aJc2U.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOfnm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/spirit2k.png/)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1TAxzm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Pn3rQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M19o5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OfIJm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PK4Pb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/58Aog.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UJ2PN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7qgi2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EpWy4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DOj4O.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GSu53.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ooJ3w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://theplanetaryworkshop.com/maps/ConcreteDreamsTilted_1.5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TLswy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rW0sYl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n152/blademasterEXO/TL%20Map%20Contest%20Oct%202011/KorhalKombatOverview2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n152/blademasterEXO/TL%20Map%20Contest%20Oct%202011/ZerataiShrinesOverview.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n152/blademasterEXO/TL%20Map%20Contest%20Oct%202011/SelendisGraceOverview2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aQmGN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eSsoKl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ViSljl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IOGKul.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4joGT.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RmSZf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/blm09.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SFwuw.jpg)
